Would you consider not drafting luck and keeping manning??

[chad72]

Our biggest issue was thinking this team did not have issues because success came early during Luck's rookie contract and not filling the coffers with draft picks in 2013 and 2014 that would have been producing at all areas of need now when Luck is being paid his big contract.

 

So, it is like starting all over again from the draft point of view with 2015 and 2016. Since success came early, we did not have high enough draft picks and Grigson did us no favors by swinging and missing more than hitting on mid-tier free agents. 

 

By retaining Peyton, the only thing we would have had was the high draft picks to load us with defensive talent. However, I am not sure if Caldwell and his defensive system he wanted plus Polian's penchant to pay middle of the road homegrown talent over playing free agency would have gotten us where we want.

 

If we load up with defensive talent the next draft and get new coaches by year 7, would you guys really care if we built a dynasty that made 3 AFCCG in a row and wins at least a SB in years 7 through 9 of Luck's career? He would barely be over 30 then (31 in year 9) and elite QBs play well into their mid 30s at a high level.

 

I still think it was the right move, to let go of Peyton before his physical decline was inevitable. 

[Myles]

21 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Luck hasn't been the problem.

 

Seeing as how Luck cost much less and the Colts still had problems putting together a team around him and Luck has always been one of the most hit QBs in the league and he's much more athletic than Peyton I don't think Peyton would have been better.  In fact seeing as Luck was hit so much he's been hurt and Manning had injury issues of his own without being hit as much as Luck I think it would have been a disaster.

Of course this is all just fun speculation.     I think with an extra draft and a half of picks, the offensive line would have been better.  

[King Colt]

How can any QB live up to his abilities when he is surrounded by mediocre players. Compare Manning's roster with the ship of fools on the filed now. It was the right thing to draft Luck but if you but the meanest guard dog  alive you still have to feed it and take it to the vet for check-ups and when it gets sick, not so with Luck.

[rock8591]

I'm halfway mulling it, lol. Luck would have garnered at minimum 1 draft, possibly 2.

[Myles]

Just now, rock8591 said:

I'm halfway mulling it, lol. Luck would have garnered at minimum 1 draft, possibly 2.

Washington gave 2 1sts and a 2nd to move up to #2 and Luck was much more sought after than RG3.

I remember Cleveland dangling their entire draft plus the next years 1st and 2nd.   Miami was offering a boatload too.  

[BullsColtsFan1]

51 minutes ago, Myles said:

Not with the wealth of good draft picks we would have had.   I think we would have won a Superbowl with Manning on a team with talent.   I've only seen a trade like this would have been once in my life and it lead to the receiver of the picks winning multiple Superbowls.   I'd take that chance.  

That is true we would have gotten a lot but I am not so sure Manning would have won a superbowl with the talent the team had in 2012-2015.  I am still glad we drafted Luck.  I said back in 2011 that I am happy either way.  4-5 more years with Peyton or starting over with Luck.  I just think Luck needs some more talent around him.

[Jason_]

13 hours ago, DougDew said:

If we kept Manning and traded down, then we could have built a roster that would have gone to the playoffs and made the AFCCG, which we did with Luck anyway during his first few years.  We'd now be sitting with a defensive minded team and annually searching for a Dilfer-ish QB who could manage the game.  Not a bad strategy or outcome, but different way of getting there.

 

The problem was not drafting Luck.  The problem was drafting a franchise QB with the intent of paying him franchise money, but fitting him into the run-first offense and the slow footed defensive philosophy.  

 

It was what Irsay wanted, and he hired his coach, and his GM tried to build that team for him.  It simply is outdated, and he still has not fully realized that.

 

Actually, I think Grigson probably is smart enough to realize it, but his boss and his coach think otherwise, so its two against one.

 

 

I agree completely with your first paragraph, but disagree with the 2nd.  IMO the problem was spending all the picks they did on offensive skill players and not on the trenches.  Rather than Hilton, Brazill, Ballard, Allen, Fleener and Harnish I'd have liked to have seen at least 2 of those early picks to have gone to the OL.  I'd have rather filled the skill positions with late draft picks, UDFAs and the remaining UFA pool for that first year. 

[Jason_]

12 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

Peyton would've been murdered behind our o lines. It would have been ugly. Luck can at least run out of trouble sometimes, Peyton wasn't nearly as mobile as Luck is. 

 

I'd say the OL Peyton played behind in 2010 was worse than the 2012 OL.  Peyton was never mobile yet he still succeeded behind very poor OLs because of his ability to determine what was going to happen before the ball was snapped.  He would not have been murdered behind our OLs.

[DougDew]

20 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

 

I agree completely with your first paragraph, but disagree with the 2nd.  IMO the problem was spending all the picks they did on offensive skill players and not on the trenches.  Rather than Hilton, Brazill, Ballard, Allen, Fleener and Harnish I'd have liked to have seen at least 2 of those early picks to have gone to the OL.  I'd have rather filled the skill positions with late draft picks, UDFAs and the remaining UFA pool for that first year. 

I think the roster was really a problem that first year.  There were no TEs at all, no RB, and only Reggie at WR.  I could see not drafting brazile and replace that with a OLman, but the other positions were really needed.  And Ballard was actually good before the ACL. This was the year Grigs filled the Oline needs with vets like Satele, McGoo, and Justice.  

 

In hindsight, there simply were not enough picks that year to even really put a dent into the amount of players needed to to field a competent team.  Hindsight says to draft Luck, but trade down the Fleener and Allen picks to get more mid round players.

 

BTW, IIRC, i think we used a pick to trade up to get TY, or did we trade down?  We moved one way or the other.  If the former, then we used 5 high picks to get 4 players, Luck, CF, DA, and TY.  Way too expensive, IMO.

[Jason_]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think the roster was really a problem that first year.  There were no TEs at all, no RB, and only Reggie at WR.  I could see not drafting brazile and replace that with a OLman, but the other positions were really needed.  And Ballard was actually good before the ACL. This was the year Grigs filled the Oline needs with vets like Satele, McGoo, and Justice.  

 

In hindsight, there simply were not enough picks that year to even really put a dent into the amount of players needed to to field a competent team.  Hindsight says to draft Luck, but trade down the Fleener and Allen picks to get more mid round players.

 

BTW, IIRC, i think we used a pick to trade up to get TY, or did we trade down?  We moved one way or the other.  If the former, then we used 5 high picks to get 4 players, Luck, CF, DA, and TY.  Way too expensive, IMO.

 

There definitely weren't enough picks, that's for sure.  I remember how bare bones the offensive skill positions were.  Still though, I'd have rather most of the skill players had been stop gaps rather than the OL. 

 

Honestly I think my biggest gripes are with the Allen and Fleener picks.  Don't get me wrong, I like both players, but I'd have gone OL with both of those picks.  I know we had no TEs (except for maybe Brody Eldridge who was later released) but we'd have been fine for one year with UDFA or cheap FA TEs

[lollygagger8]

What good would it have been having more picks (If we would've traded top pick for more picks and kept Manning instead of drafting Luck) if Grigson was making the decisions on who to choose? 

 

 

[chad72]

26 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

There definitely weren't enough picks, that's for sure.  I remember how bare bones the offensive skill positions were.  Still though, I'd have rather most of the skill players had been stop gaps rather than the OL. 

 

Honestly I think my biggest gripes are with the Allen and Fleener picks.  Don't get me wrong, I like both players, but I'd have gone OL with both of those picks.  I know we had no TEs (except for maybe Brody Eldridge who was later released) but we'd have been fine for one year with UDFA or cheap FA TEs

 

A new QB's best friend is a TE and running game. At least in theory. I was telling my co-worker that Fleener was the wrong pick, Cordy Glenn, that big OL can be a cornerstone OL pick and he was sitting right there. My co-worker used the example of Pollard and Dilger. But then, you had an OC like Arians who used more 3 WR formations than TEs in his offense. Then, we get Pep and Chud, who are somewhere in the middle. Pep is not lighting it up by any means in Cleveland. 

 

Till this day, I stand pat on my preference for OL over Fleener. Allen, they had no idea he would be there, so I could have lived with him for a 3rd rounder but Fleener's pick could have been routed differently, hands down. Give the QB a good OL, and he will look even a 4th or 5th round or even UDFA skill position guy look good. 

 

However, if Luck's tendencies to look farther most of the time when people in the flat are open (ala Peyton in his early days) do not change, he will continue to get hit and critical drives will stall.

[Jason_]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

A new QB's best friend is a TE and running game. At least in theory. I was telling my co-worker that Fleener was the wrong pick, Cordy Glenn, that big OL can be a cornerstone OL pick and he was sitting right there. My co-worker used the example of Pollard and Dilger. But then, you had an OC like Arians who used more 3 WR formations than TEs in his offense. Then, we get Pep and Chud, who are somewhere in the middle. Pep is not lighting it up by any means in Cleveland. 

 

Till this day, I stand pat on my preference for OL over Fleener. Give the QB a good OL, and he will look even a 4th or 5th round or UDFA skill position guy look good. 

 

yeah Cordy Glenn was my hope at that pick too, and I was hoping we could somehow land Keleche Osemele with the pick we used on Allen. 

[NannyMcafee]

Draft luck let him sit. At this point he would be healthier and maybe even smarter. 

[jameszeigler834]

12 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

A new QB's best friend is a TE and running game. At least in theory. I was telling my co-worker that Fleener was the wrong pick, Cordy Glenn, that big OL can be a cornerstone OL pick and he was sitting right there. My co-worker used the example of Pollard and Dilger. But then, you had an OC like Arians who used more 3 WR formations than TEs in his offense. Then, we get Pep and Chud, who are somewhere in the middle. Pep is not lighting it up by any means in Cleveland. 

 

Till this day, I stand pat on my preference for OL over Fleener. Allen, they had no idea he would be there, so I could have lived with him for a 3rd rounder but Fleener's pick could have been routed differently, hands down. Give the QB a good OL, and he will look even a 4th or 5th round or even UDFA skill position guy look good. 

 

However, if Luck's tendencies to look farther most of the time when people in the flat are open (ala Peyton in his early days) do not change, he will continue to get hit and critical drives will stall.

I would still draft Luck manning only had about 3 really good years left at tht time he never would have survived behind that o-line.

[chad72]

1 minute ago, jameszeigler834 said:

I would still draft Luck manning only had about 3 really good years left at tht time he never would have survived behind that o-line.

 

Yeah, the thread is about Luck or Manning, I did say I'd still have drafted Luck.

 

The above post, I just digressed to respond to Jason's post about the picks that came after that.

[19colt]

3 hours ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

Manning played another 4 years.  He was really good for 2 in a half of those 4 years.  Yes he won a superbowl in his last year but the trademark of that team was defense.  We would be back to 2011 again this year and possibly plenty of years to come without Luck.  Luck is not the problem.  He is a franchise QB.  He needs a team around him.  Offensive line and defense in particular. 

I think Manning is still playing today (and next year) if he still has his system. Agree Luck is not the problem though. Even with the bad personnel around him, the team is slightly better coaching away from the playoffs this year.

[19colt]

47 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

What good would it have been having more picks (If we would've traded top pick for more picks and kept Manning instead of drafting Luck) if Grigson was making the decisions on who to choose? 

 

 

Because blind mice find the cheese occasionally!

[Revala]

16 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

This is dumb.  This goes along with the same stupidity that said the Colts were wrong to leave Baltimore

 

 

DO SOME RESEARCH ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE ASKING STUFF LIKE THIS!!!!

Research? What research? About trading the pick for a Kings ransom and finally building a good team around possibly the GOAT? I am unaware what research you're talking about. Please enlighten.

[Gavin]

The right decision was made. Its been a huge chunk of the decisions made after that have been wrong

[21isSuperman]

If, and only if, you could draft in 2012 knowing what you know now, then yes.  I would have kept Peyton, taken the king's ransom, picked all the best players (since this is knowing what we know now), drafted Russell Wilson to take the reins after Peyton, and built a solid team.

 

However, since that's impossible, if you're in the moment itself and the Browns call you offering every pick of their draft for Luck, you say no.  Keeping the pick, letting Manning go wherever he wanted, and drafting Luck was the right thing

[Jason_]

I was actually in favor of trading the pick regardless of whether or not they were going to keep Peyton. 

[david johnson]

why, we de have no qb now to go with our horific roster. we got luck cheap for 4 years, by keeping manning our roster would have been worse. grigson has done an unbelievably poor job, and with all the staff changes, chuck has failed. back the money truck up to jim harbaugh s back door please.

[James Ducheteau]

3 hours ago, chad72 said:

Our biggest issue was thinking this team did not have issues because success came early during Luck's rookie contract and not filling the coffers with draft picks in 2013 and 2014 that would have been producing at all areas of need now when Luck is being paid his big contract.

 

So, it is like starting all over again from the draft point of view with 2015 and 2016. Since success came early, we did not have high enough draft picks and Grigson did us no favors by swinging and missing more than hitting on mid-tier free agents. 

 

By retaining Peyton, the only thing we would have had was the high draft picks to load us with defensive talent. However, I am not sure if Caldwell and his defensive system he wanted plus Polian's penchant to pay middle of the road homegrown talent over playing free agency would have gotten us where we want.

 

If we load up with defensive talent the next draft and get new coaches by year 7, would you guys really care if we built a dynasty that made 3 AFCCG in a row and wins at least a SB in years 7 through 9 of Luck's career? He would barely be over 30 then (31 in year 9) and elite QBs play well into their mid 30s at a high level.

 

I still think it was the right move, to let go of Peyton before his physical decline was inevitable. 

I honestly do not believe Luck is going to play that long. I do really expect a couple more injury riddled years out of him and then he will be done and we are going to be screwed. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what I see when I watch this team.

[Jason_]

3 hours ago, chad72 said:

By retaining Peyton, the only thing we would have had was the high draft picks to load us with defensive talent. However, I am not sure if Caldwell and his defensive system he wanted plus Polian's penchant to pay middle of the road homegrown talent over playing free agency would have gotten us where we want.

 

Couple of things though...I think Polian was gone regardless of what they did with the #1 pick.  In the scenario of this thread, I'm assuming that Grigson still gets hired but they make more of an effort to get a quality DC to work for Caldwell.  And that leads to the other point about the defensive system Caldwell wanted...I don't think that would have been an issue either.  I don't think Caldwell was stuck on Dungy's tampa 2 system because otherwise I don't think they would have interviewed Steve Spagnuolo. 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

There definitely weren't enough picks, that's for sure.  I remember how bare bones the offensive skill positions were.  Still though, I'd have rather most of the skill players had been stop gaps rather than the OL. 

 

Honestly I think my biggest gripes are with the Allen and Fleener picks.  Don't get me wrong, I like both players, but I'd have gone OL with both of those picks.  I know we had no TEs (except for maybe Brody Eldridge who was later released) but we'd have been fine for one year with UDFA or cheap FA TEs

Personally, I never liked the two TE set anyway.  If you want to do a power down hill running game, then get a real fullback, which is what Norv Turner always had.  I thought Fleener would be used like Dallas Clark was, and being a good receiver and colege chum would help out a new QB.  The Allen pick back to back was a head scratcher, especially since they just signed Havilli to be a FB, but we were told he was far and away the BPA.  Trading for TY made sense, needing a Marvin Replacement.  Ballard was a good pick.  Brazil and others was just throwing darts. 

 

So starting off Luck with Reggie and his own Dallas and Marvin made some sense to help a new QB be comfortable.  Power running with Ballard and the FB looked good on paper.  It was just such a bare roster and so few picks and cap money its no wonder Grigs got executive of the year when they went 11-5.

 

Then the next year, Freeney's 14 million cap figure had to be dealt with, not to mention him being a poor fit for the 34.  It was really a bit of a no win situation for any GM to deal with.  Even having Luck isn't going to transform a team without some help. 

 

Then we draft Chapman and Hughes to play the fatty 34, but then want more athleticism so those two picks get cut and wasted due to philosophy change, IMO.

 

Just a cluster of fits and spurts that I don't think you can hang the blame on any one person.

[RockThatBlue]

3 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

I'd say the OL Peyton played behind in 2010 was worse than the 2012 OL.  Peyton was never mobile yet he still succeeded behind very poor OLs because of his ability to determine what was going to happen before the ball was snapped.  He would not have been murdered behind our OLs.

Yes, the 2010 line was bad. But could he had withstood playing behind the Colts o lines of 2012-2015? Those lines were just as bad, if not a bit worse than 2010s. 3 straight years behind a bad o line with a non mobile QB doesn't sound like it would end well

 

[GoColts8818]

4 hours ago, Myles said:

Of course this is all just fun speculation.     I think with an extra draft and a half of picks, the offensive line would have been better.  

How did that work out for the Rams?  

 

Also what from Grigson's track record makes you think he wouldn't have blown those picks?

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Yes, the 2010 line was bad. But could he had withstood playing behind the Colts o lines of 2012-2015? Those lines were just as bad, if not a bit worse than 2010s. 3 straight years behind a bad o line with a non mobile QB doesn't sound like it would end well

 

 

2010 wasn't the only year Peyton played behind a poor OL.  His strength was reading the defense and making the necessary adjustments in terms of hot routes and blocking assignments prior to the snap. 

 

He didn't need to be mobile.  Sure it would have helped, but that was never part of his game. 

[dgambill]

Question remains could we have kept Manning and shed a ton of the players around him like Clark, Bracket, Garcon, and later Freeney and Bethea and retooled on the fly with Peyton's contract. If we could have got Peyton to renegotiate a smaller contract maybe it would have been the right move. Obviously it is contingent on getting the right players in the draft. Could we have rebuilt that OL and defense. Peyton has always shown he could work with just about any receiving core. He made Decker, Sanders, and Julius Thomas multi millionaires and DT a max contract type receiver. Also he extended Jacob Tamme and Brandon Stokely's career. I mean this guy could work with what we have now for sure. Could we have turned that Luck pick into a huge haul....quite likely but would those picks turned out to be good players....that is harder to determine. I mean it isn't like St Louis turned themselves into a playoff team by giving up RG3. Could we have used a 2nd rounder to get Kirk Cousins and had him sit behind Peyton...or maybe a 3rd rounder on Russell Wilson. That might have been nice to groom one of those guys. Hindsight is always 20/20 but at the time I would have loved to kept Peyton since I'm a huge Peyton fan. But that's my heart talking and that decision had to be done with your brain so I understand it. The only thing I didn't like was all the talking in the media about keeping him all along and then cutting him. What would this team have looked like with Peyton surrounded by a young nucleus and someone like Wilson or Cousin waiting in the wing. Would we be better than we are now...there are no certainties. I think we could have still been a quality team...a playoff team...and would we be better with Wilson or Cousins than Luck now...that is also hard to say...both have turned out to be solid young qbs...Wilson especially...but we have Luck and no what ifs will change that. So maybe we should just be happy with what we have...after all we are still very much a watchable team. We may not be really good but the games are still usually exciting with Luck out there.

[coltsva]

The Rams got a boatload of picks for RG3. Five years later they still stink. 

 

What if the Colts traded the Luck pick and Lucks team goes 11-5 for the first 3 years, makes the playoffs all of those years, and those picks the Colts got are in the mid to high 20's? 

 

We'd probably still have a lousy team AND we'd be looking for a quarterback.

[DougDew]

43 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Question remains could we have kept Manning and shed a ton of the players around him like Clark, Bracket, Garcon, and later Freeney and Bethea and retooled on the fly with Peyton's contract. If we could have got Peyton to renegotiate a smaller contract maybe it would have been the right move. Obviously it is contingent on getting the right players in the draft. Could we have rebuilt that OL and defense. Peyton has always shown he could work with just about any receiving core. He made Decker, Sanders, and Julius Thomas multi millionaires and DT a max contract type receiver. Also he extended Jacob Tamme and Brandon Stokely's career. I mean this guy could work with what we have now for sure. Could we have turned that Luck pick into a huge haul....quite likely but would those picks turned out to be good players....that is harder to determine. I mean it isn't like St Louis turned themselves into a playoff team by giving up RG3. Could we have used a 2nd rounder to get Kirk Cousins and had him sit behind Peyton...or maybe a 3rd rounder on Russell Wilson. That might have been nice to groom one of those guys. Hindsight is always 20/20 but at the time I would have loved to kept Peyton since I'm a huge Peyton fan. But that's my heart talking and that decision had to be done with your brain so I understand it. The only thing I didn't like was all the talking in the media about keeping him all along and then cutting him. What would this team have looked like with Peyton surrounded by a young nucleus and someone like Wilson or Cousin waiting in the wing. Would we be better than we are now...there are no certainties. I think we could have still been a quality team...a playoff team...and would we be better with Wilson or Cousins than Luck now...that is also hard to say...both have turned out to be solid young qbs...Wilson especially...but we have Luck and no what ifs will change that. So maybe we should just be happy with what we have...after all we are still very much a watchable team. We may not be really good but the games are still usually exciting with Luck out there.

My actual plan at the time was to trade the pick down several times and draft Nick Foles in the 3rd.  Not sure how that would have worked out.

[jshipp23]

Before all is said and done Luck will win multiple Super Bowls here..We could have already had one, but Pagano has killed us...We have won in spite of him, not because of him...He has cost us too many games to count during tenure his here....We are a coach away period...If we can get Harbaugh we will be in Super Bowl in 2 years and competing next year...Offer Harbaugh 10 million a year , coach and G.M job and watch the magic happen...

[mahagga73]

No. They made absolutely the right move but it hasn't worked out due to incompetence.

[Coltfreak]

6 hours ago, Revala said:

Research? What research? About trading the pick for a Kings ransom and finally building a good team around possibly the GOAT? I am unaware what research you're talking about. Please enlighten.

Obviously you didn't look into the implications of keeping Manning.  

 

I'll give you a hint.     What would have been the salary cap implications and who would have had to be cut to be able to sign his signing bonus?    Do you even know what he was due if he wasn't cut?

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

On 12/13/2016 at 5:49 PM, Trace Pyott said:

I know a lot of people are going to freak out about this and I'm not exactly sure I know the correct answer but before this season I was 100 sure we did the right thing. Now after last year and this year I'm not so sure. First hear me out. I know the team was pretty horrible talent wise especially after we gutted the team when manning left. However, If we had kept Peyton and traded the luck pick we could of gotten a kings ransom for him and the rebuild would of been extremely fast. Also we know how good Peyton played those last couple of years I mean my god he threw for over double the amount of Td luck is going to throw this season in one year!!! Peyton by himself could of probably gotten us to the playoffs a few of those years. Also, I am not sure if it's true but I hear Peyton was kinda ticked off at irsay for letting him go and will probably never work with the colts again because of it. If we never got rid of Peyton he would of retired a colt and possibly may even have coached for us or done some kind of executive work. I also think if we would of kept manning we could of drafted one of these young upcoming qb who are leading their teams. I almost doubt if we had kept manning the team would in any worse shape than it is now front to back. Like I said I don't know the answer just wanted to know what you guys think.

*

 

It was not possible to keep Peyton.     His $26 Million dollar salary made it so we couldn't cut him.

 

And the team had grown old and lacked talent around him.     So, older guys were trimmed away.

 

Have you already forgotten that Luck's first year the Colts played with an $80 Million payroll while the rest of the NFL played with $120 Mill?       We couldn't do that with Peyton.

 

And if we had Peyton there's no saying he would've done better,  because we wouldn't have been able to surround him with much talent.      Remember,  his contract was way more expensive than Luck's rookie deal.

 

There was no way to keep Peyton.     This ship sailed years ago.      I don't know why it has to be brought up again now?

 

[COLTS7]

Love the thought ....since I have been saying that since Manning (GOAT) was cut- try explaining that to your grandchildren and hope they don't google his stats (post-Colts) 

the fact that about 90% of the human population still thinks it was the right move.....no comment 

ps- I felt that way even though at the time, I was convinced Luck would finish his career as the best QB of all-time, based on his first 5 years and the lack of consistent improvement, that seems to be a very unlikely scenario

[Jason_]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

My actual plan at the time was to trade the pick down several times and draft Nick Foles in the 3rd.  Not sure how that would have worked out.

 

Thats actually exactly what I wanted to do too

[runthepost]

45 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

Thats actually exactly what I wanted to do too

Or draft Russell Wilson in the 3rd

[runthepost]

5 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Before all is said and done Luck will win multiple Super Bowls here..We could have already had one, but Pagano has killed us...We have won in spite of him, not because of him...He has cost us too many games to count during tenure his here....We are a coach away period...If we can get Harbaugh we will be in Super Bowl in 2 years and competing next year...Offer Harbaugh 10 million a year , coach and G.M job and watch the magic happen...

At this rate we would be lucky to be in a super bowl