Andrew Luck, Colts near blockbuster extension

[MTC]

I don't care how much or how long the contract is worth, but I just hope he gets it done.

[shakedownstreet]

it'll be highly entertaining to watch a certain segment of colts' fans lose their collective minds over the dollar amount once the deal is inked 

 

i mean we all know exactly how this plays out

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 hours ago, CF4L said:

 

 

Who said anything about playoff games I'm referring to guys who have a future here.

 

1998- Manning

1999- Edge

2001- Reggie

2002- Dwight

 

 

These are a few outside of Luck/Hilton and Moncrief isn't bad either not really seeing a lot of long term success of the players he's drafted.

I think we struck gold with Kelly but the jury is still out obviously on that. Moncrief IMO will be a Good Pro and Luck is already Good to Very Good same for Hilton. We just had 3 11 win seasons and made a Championship Game in this Luck era so we must be doing something right.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I would love to see us lock Luck in for at least 6 years, that would take him up into his early 30's. By then we will know if he ends up Great.

[backshoulderfade]

Hey, remember that time someone said Luck doesn't have arm talent?

[2006Coltsbestever]

55 minutes ago, backshoulderfade said:

Hey, remember that time someone said Luck doesn't have arm talent?

 Yeah I was at band camp listening to that nonsense (sarcasm) I read that Post earlier from someone and was thinking WTH!

[CF4L]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

When did Irsay EVER say that?

 

Spoiler alert: He didn't, but please provide whatever you have that shows Irsay saying any of that in bold up there, or that Manning's contract hurt the Colts at any point.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2013/10/19/peyton-manning-jim-irsay-indianapolis-colts-decision-andrew-luck/3076797/

 

Quote

 

Business, but emotional

Although Manning's health can't be discounted, Irsay insists bottom-line economics drove his decision. Re-upping the NFL's only four-time Most Valuable Player would exacerbate the Colts' already serious salary-cap issues.

 

"There wouldn't have been a Robert Mathis or a Reggie Wayne," Irsay insisted. "There was no way we could have put (Manning) on the field with the type of team we would have fielded."

 

 

[Coffeedrinker]

I can guarantee the salary cap has never stopped the Colts (or any team for that matter) to sign a player they wanted to sign.  The salary cap numbers can be manipulated numerous ways.

[throwing BBZ]

13 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I can guarantee the salary cap has never stopped the Colts (or any team for that matter) to sign a player they wanted to sign.  The salary cap numbers can be manipulated numerous ways.

 

 Sometimes folks just don`t get it!
 There is only so much pie to spread around, and in the end, it needs to make business since long term.
 I Guarantee YOU, each year, we watch many Dozens of guys not signed by teams because of Salary.
  And many veterans are Not getting fair value because on many teams QB`s are getting $5-$10M more than their fair share.
  And Manning is by far the # 1 $alary Demanding culprit of all time.
 It really is that simple. JMO of course.

[Coffeedrinker]

Just now, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Sometimes folks just don`t get it!
 There is only so much pie to spread around, and in the end, it needs to make business since long term.
 I Guarantee YOU, each year, we watch many Dozens of guys not signed by teams because of Salary.
  And many veterans are Not getting fair value because on many teams QB`s are getting $5-$10M more than their fair share.
  And Manning is by far the # 1 $alary Demanding culprit of all time.
 It really is that simple. JMO of course.

You are the one that doesn't get it.  Players may not be signed because they want more money than a team is willing to pay for them but the salary cap does not prevent teams from signing players they want to sign.

 

Signing Manning did not prevent the Colts from signing any other player that they wanted to sign.  Singing Luck will not prevent the Colts from signing any other player they want to sign.  The cap can be manipulated too many ways and each organization has personnel who's sole job it is to make everything work under the cap.  It really is that simple.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, CF4L said:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2013/10/19/peyton-manning-jim-irsay-indianapolis-colts-decision-andrew-luck/3076797/

 

Do you understand that he was answering a question about keeping Manning and drafting Luck? And do you understand that the team had $40m in dead money in 2012, $30m of which had nothing to do with Manning?

 

Irsay never said Manning's contract hurt the Colts. It never did.

[CF4L]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do you understand that he was answering a question about keeping Manning and drafting Luck? And do you understand that the team had $40m in dead money in 2012, $30m of which had nothing to do with Manning?

 

Irsay never said Manning's contract hurt the Colts. It never did.

 

And yet he used that as an excuse as to why he didn't want to bring him back I mean did you not read him saying he couldn't keep Mathis and Wayne if we had Manning at that price tag? Never mind that most teams go for the younger cheaper option every time to begin with. 

 

My point is which you clearly ignore apparently is that history is repeating itself before he gets a deal done he will brag about what a blockbuster it will be and then says it will be team friendly. Okay. Which is it? There will be a time when a team pays a lot for a QB and then others will have to get paid but can't because $$$ is tied up to one player(which is what Irsay claims he never wanted to do yet again) 

 

The Saints now are a good example of this.

 

I hope Andrew Luck gets signed and makes decent money too won't hold it against him I just don't want to hear Jimbo complain again how its hampering the team when he was the reason why it became an issue to begin with.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, CF4L said:

And yet he used that as an excuse as to why he didn't want to bring him back

 

No he didn't.

 

Quote

I mean did you not read him saying he couldn't keep Mathis and Wayne if we had Manning at that price tag?

 

Manning + Luck, was the point. And honestly, even then they could have made it work, but it would have cost them Freeney (whom they should have released anyways).

 

Quote

Never mind that most teams go for the younger cheaper option every time to begin with. 

 

Not true, and not relevant.

 

Quote

My point is which you clearly ignore apparently is that history is repeating itself before he gets a deal done he will brag about what a blockbuster it will be and then says it will be team friendly. Okay. Which is it?

 

Both. Sorry you can't grasp nuance.

 

Quote

There will be a time when a team pays a lot for a QB and then others will have to get paid but can't because $$$ is tied up to one player(which is what Irsay claims he never wanted to do yet again) 

 

That's life in the salary cap era. Would you rather have that other player or your QB? It's a simple choice to make.

 

Quote

The Saints now are a good example of this.

 

No they aren't. The Saints are an example of bad drafting and poor cap management, mostly pushing Brees' cap hits into the future. His contract hasn't been the problem. Adjusting his contract to make up for their other mistakes and overspending is the problem. Without Drew Brees, they'd be worse than they have been, Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis would be fired, and they still wouldn't have a QB.

 

Quote

I hope Andrew Luck gets signed and makes decent money too won't hold it against him I just don't want to hear Jimbo complain again how its hampering the team when he was the reason why it became an issue to begin with.

 

My last word on this to you, you clearly don't understand what Irsay was talking about or salary cap management. I've said it before, it's very simple: Either pay your QB market value, or find a way to replace him. There is no other choice.