The crazy notion that Luck is unhappy....../ Luck Rumor not true/ Clearing the air ( (merge))

[XxGoosexX]

13 hours ago, Synthetic said:

I wouldn't blame Luck one bit if all of this ends up being true down the line. This team has failed him...He was drafted by an organization that intentionally tanked to draft him, and robbed him the chance to go to another team that could've maybe done things better. Lack of quality coaches, lack of offensive line, and now he's pretty much been killed behind that line to the point he's damaged and could be a risk for a career ending injury. After all the hell he's been through with injuries, I don't blame him at all if he truly does feel this way or gets to feeling this way down the line...

 

If Luck does come back at ANY point this year, what's the point in even starting him? He's just going to punished more behind that offensive line and risk another major injury. This team isn't winning more than 6 games...Their ceiling with Luck is around 6-7 wins. It's no use in risking him to get injured again. 

 

I feel sorry for the kid. He deserves better than this. His talent is pretty much being wasted and he had so much potential when he came up in the draft. 

Wow, Really?? Intentionally tanked?? Not a real colts fan?? Sounds more like a troll or butt hurt Pats fan to me.. not sure as I'm just a Rookie.

[Ne-Ca-Higher]

I'm not saying Greenie's opinion has merit, but I've learned never to disregard rumors out of hand.  Feelers do get floated for reaction and agents' denials are part of the feeler.

 

We fans should also consider the possibility, however remote, that management may soon calculate that trading Andrew may be an important part of rebuilding the team.  This sentiment could grow after a few more blowouts, god forbid!  Certainly he would command a lot in return.  Trading him would guarantee a poor record and a shot at Darnold, Rosen or another top QB prospect, who could grow with the young team rather than just grow old.  Even if you (probably rightly) believe Luck is better than the aforementioned, how much better is he?  And, of course, there may be some concern about Andrew's recovery.  This is a highly unlikely scenario, especially given that Andrew may not get to display his healthy return before the trading deadline.

 

The Browns are applying their Moneyball strategy ruthlessly, cutting decent players like Joe Haden, who are seen as highly paid and unlikely to contribute much in a couple years when the team is a contender.  Timing matters.

 

The good news is that the Colts rebuilding began with Ballard and Andrew is a great asset whether you keep him or use him to get a couple established players and some high draft picks.  He's such a great guy and symbol of the Colts that it would be hard to imagine him traded, but I never thought the Browns would part with beloved Bernie Kosar either.  It's a business.

[Warrior78]

I think Andrew will be back and ready to go on Oct 8th.  Manning statue ceremony that weekend and

1 game to warmup before  conference play starts.  Way to early to panic. This team needs time for  the players to work as a unit and then someone to lead them.......as in Andrew Luck.

 

 

[King Colt]

10 hours ago, DaColts85 said:

First off You do not pay a player $25mil/year to sit....will not happen.  A fan can complain all they want and hope to put Luck in some protective bubble, but this is football.  Sitting this year does not mean he does not get hurt next year.  When he is healthy and ready he will play.  End of story.

You sit him if the doctor says sit him plus there are other factors being discussed on all the sports networks and sitting him is not an open and shut case. Fans don't matter.

[CF4L]

17 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

You really don't think the Colts would have franchised tagged him to keep him from leaving?

 

They signed him to a long term deal why waste a franchise tag on a player they initially believe will stay for the long haul.

 

Of course long term deals mean nothing in the NFL

[Gramz]

1 hour ago, King Colt said:

You sit him if the doctor says sit him plus there are other factors being discussed on all the sports networks and sitting him is not an open and shut case. Fans don't matter.

I don't really care what's being discussed on all the sports networks, everyone's got an opinion, but no-one except those in our organization really know what's going on, and what's best for Andrew.

 

Oh..... and Fans do matter.  Without fans, there'd be no games.

 

 

[DougDew]

Based on the rumors, I don't have any doubt that Luck has expressed concerns over the apparent stagnation of the team to his dad Oliver, who may have informed Irsay about his son's feelings.

 

But to have that get tossed through the rumor mill to where it gets dramatically elevated to being stated on TV that Luck won't play out his contract is distortion to the point of it appearing to be a flat out headline grabbing lie.

[King Colt]

2 hours ago, Gramz said:

I don't really care what's being discussed on all the sports networks, everyone's got an opinion, but no-one except those in our organization really know what's going on, and what's best for Andrew.

 

Oh..... and Fans do matter.  Without fans, there'd be no games.

 

 

The professional writers and network sports personnel know more than everyone on this website. Again the fans do not matter. When have fans ever gone on strike? The money comes from the media- television revenue. Fans attend  games at all levels and always the games go on despite low attendance. Luck may sit until next year and if the fans don't like it tough, stay home and read the Sunday funnies. 

[Gramz]

9 minutes ago, King Colt said:

The professional writers and network sports personnel know more than everyone on this website. Again the fans do not matter. When have fans ever gone on strike? The money comes from the media- television revenue. Fans attend  games at all levels and always the games go on despite low attendance. Luck may sit until next year and if the fans don't like it tough, stay home and read the Sunday funnies. 

Excuse me for forgetting that the Media is always right.

 

Carry on.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 9/13/2017 at 12:53 PM, superrep1967 said:

They could have at least kept him on pup.

 

Luck cannot practice with the team on the Reserve/PUP. At least this way, he can practice at any time.  He will need 2-4 weeks after he begins practice to be game ready.

 

On 9/13/2017 at 3:52 PM, akcolt said:

Here from Rotoworld it's not from Ballard but he said the same thing 

The Indianapolis Star reports "there are no assurances" Andrew Luck (shoulder) will be ready for the start of training camp.

Owner Jim Irsay hinted at this back in March. Luck hasn't had any setbacks, but the Colts are committed to not rushing him back from January surgery. Even if Luck misses some camp time, there's no concern over his status for Week 1.

 

I seriously doubt the medical team told Luck a target date. They deal in time frames. I'm sure something like "If everything goes great, better than expected, you could make game 1... or something along those lines.

 

On 9/13/2017 at 4:30 PM, akcolt said:

Supe the report states at the end he insists he will be ready week 1. You can call out Rotoworlds reporting but what they report clearly says that Luck insisted he'd be ready week 1. You really don't read that? 

 

Luck doesn't know when he'll be ready.  His M.D. and PT have a range of dates.  For Luck and his surgery, it is usually listed as 6 to 9 months.  Luck is behind Schedule in football time, but is still within a normal recovery time frame in medical time, as illustrated below.

 

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/profootballdoc/94597359-132.html

 

[GusFring]

Luck signed an extension after Pagano and Grigson got extensions. For a Stanford grad, not the smartest thing to do. He should have just played under Franchise tags. 

[snkdy]

 

 

 

[GoColts8818]

7 hours ago, CF4L said:

 

They signed him to a long term deal why waste a franchise tag on a player they initially believe will stay for the long haul.

 

Of course long term deals mean nothing in the NFL

Not my point.  My point was even if Luck hadn't signed a long term deal like you said you wouldn't have if you were Luck the Colts would have let him play out the last year of his deal and then franchise tagged him.  He wasn't getting out of Indy even if he wanted too.

[DaColts85]

12 hours ago, King Colt said:

You sit him if the doctor says sit him plus there are other factors being discussed on all the sports networks and sitting him is not an open and shut case. Fans don't matter.

You did not say anything here but repeat me.  Fans do not matter you are correct.  I could care less what sports networks say about anything with Luck because they do not know.  Nothing but speculation.

[King Colt]

3 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

You did not say anything here but repeat me.  Fans do not matter you are correct.  I could care less what sports networks say about anything with Luck because they do not know.  Nothing but speculation.

Repeating you?! The reporters are not stating categorically what Luck's status is rather, they are speculating from greater info. than anyone on this website (fans) have. But at least their have credentials unlike fans. Only Luck, his doctors and anyone that the doctors speak to know Lucks probabilities of when he will return so when I read here poster declaring when he will return I have to shake my head.

[DaColts85]

1 minute ago, King Colt said:

Repeating you?! The reporters are not stating categorically what Luck's status is rather, they are speculating from greater info. than anyone on this website (fans) have. But at least their have credentials unlike fans. Only Luck, his doctors and anyone that the doctors speak to know Lucks probabilities of when he will return so when I read here poster declaring when he will return I have to shake my head.

I am not mentioning anything about when Luck will return.  Will the media find out before me or you of course but it's all up to him and the docs.

[ColtsBlueFL]

7 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

Not my point.  My point was even if Luck hadn't signed a long term deal like you said you wouldn't have if you were Luck the Colts would have let him play out the last year of his deal and then franchise tagged him.  He wasn't getting out of Indy even if he wanted too.

 

Exactly. If Kirk Cousins was worth spending 2 franchise tags on, isn't Andrew Luck?  But the point is moot. Luck is a Colt and he will be on the field as soon as he is fully cleared by both the medical team and coaching staff has given him enough practice reps to get in game shape. 

[OHColtfan]

The rumor basically insinuates that Luck is a whiny, quitter who wants out because we are losing. Whoever came up with the moronic idea has never watched the man play. How many 4th quarter come backs has he led? How many times has he stood tall in the pocket to complete a pass despite the rush?  How many times has he put his head down into a tackle to gain yards?

 

Whoever started this rumor has probably never played a day of competitive sports in their life and has no idea what it is like to try to win something as a team. Which is why most sports talk celebrities aren't worth a cow patty to listen to.

[Roger]

11 hours ago, GusFring said:

Luck signed an extension after Pagano and Grigson got extensions. For a Stanford grad, not the smartest thing to do. He should have just played under Franchise tags. 

Usually a good player doesn't want a franchise tag because it's not as much guaranteed money as a long term contract.

[GusFring]

25 minutes ago, Roger said:

Usually a good player doesn't want a franchise tag because it's not as much guaranteed money as a long term contract.

There's a difference between a good player and a potentially great qb. Quaterbacks have leverage. Had he just asked to be franchised amd not committed long term, Irsay would have fired Grigson and Pagano long before. 

[Roger]

41 minutes ago, GusFring said:

There's a difference between a good player and a potentially great qb. Quaterbacks have leverage. Had he just asked to be franchised amd not committed long term, Irsay would have fired Grigson and Pagano long before. 

The risk with franchise tag is always injury.  The guaranteed money for a star QB is a lot more than the franchise tag.  What if Luck had been playing on a franchise tag, was injured, and wasn't ready to play? Do you think he would have much leverage?

[Guest]

I don't think Luck is unhappy in Indy and wants a trade.

Luck is a 'good soldier' and doesn't like to make waves. He doesn't want to do or say anything(team-mates,coaches,fans,media) for people not to like him. I think reading books and being a architect may be a bigger thing than playing with a very good team and possibly winning super bowls, Lol.

Just my opinion of course.

[loudnproudcolt]

Hey everyone. Don't comment too much these days, but on this one, I had to. Yesterday I watched Mike and Mike since he said he would readdress what he said.

 

They waited until Adam Shefter made an appearance to talk about it. Adam knows more about what is happening in the league than most. He actually has contacts. Greenburg just opines.

 

The first thing Shefter said to Greeny when they started talking about LucK: Where the Hell did that come from?

 

That was all I needed to hear!

[ReMeDy]

Anyone who gives back to Indianapolis, like Andrew Luck does, is NOT unhappy. One time, the guy was even walking down the street and stopped at someone's wedding. Why, I don't know.

[The Fish]

The new Freeman piece on BR is citing a teammate as the source of the "Luck is concerned about the franchise's ability to get him some help" rumor- which isn't "he want's out". It also cites Front Office guys who think he should force his way out..

This toothpaste isn't getting put back into the tube until he plays a few games and preferably wins them and looks good doing it. This hammering, clucking hen, rumor mill on this is exhausting. 

 

The media hates this team and is trying to speak Luck leaving into existence. I know he tunes this stuff out, but whatever is getting back to him has got to be irritating to him.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Roger said:

The risk with franchise tag is always injury.  The guaranteed money for a star QB is a lot more than the franchise tag.  What if Luck had been playing on a franchise tag, was injured, and wasn't ready to play? Do you think he would have much leverage?

 

By signing a new contract, he gave away all leverage, so what's the difference? This topic should die once one uses even a small sliver of logic, but that's too much to ask for these days. 

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

By signing a new contract, he gave away all leverage, so what's the difference? This topic should die once one uses even a small sliver of logic, but that's too much to ask for these days. 

Topic should be locked like the other thread on it was lol

[BProland85]

36 minutes ago, The Fish said:

The new Freeman piece on BR is citing a teammate as the source of the "Luck is concerned about the franchise's ability to get him some help" rumor- which isn't "he want's out". It also cites Front Office guys who think he should force his way out..

This toothpaste isn't getting put back into the tube until he plays a few games and preferably wins them and looks good doing it. This hammering, clucking hen, rumor mill on this is exhausting. 

 

The media hates this team and is trying to speak Luck leaving into existence. I know he tunes this stuff out, but whatever is getting back to him has got to be irritating to him.

 

The media is making way to much of this "rumor." Do the Colts have problems, you bet they do! But am I fully confident those issues will be addressed after this year, I sure do. There is no chance Pagano and his staff are brought back, nor should they be. There are a few coaches that may be kept, but I could see a big overall in coaching this next offseason. Hopefully Ballard can sway a guy like David Shaw to come coach Andrew Luck again. 

 

The media forgets that this team is also dealing with arguably the worst injury situation in the league right now with many key players for this team out. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Roger said:

The risk with franchise tag is always injury.  The guaranteed money for a star QB is a lot more than the franchise tag.  What if Luck had been playing on a franchise tag, was injured, and wasn't ready to play? Do you think he would have much leverage?

Yes this is true... however...

 

For a quarterback the price is high, and it is a one year guarantee; each time.

 

In Kirk Cousins case, he got paid almost 20 million in 2016, and gets just shy of 24 million for this year.  All guaranteed now.  That is almost 22 million per season the last two.  Nearly 44 million dollars.  No long term deal.  His rookie contract over 4 years only got him 2,572,668 combined! 

 

So Kirk is set, unless he still wants a big payday and a contract with guaranteed money... then he'll have to play well again this year and see what the market brings.

 

Luck has signed contact, so is locked in.

[Roger]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

By signing a new contract, he gave away all leverage, so what's the difference? This topic should die once one uses even a small sliver of logic, but that's too much to ask for these days. 

Because you think you have it all figured out, we should not discuss this?

 

You seem exasperated by almost anything people post. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Roger said:

Because you think you have it all figured out, we should not discuss this?

 

You seem exasperated by almost anything people post. 

 

Just stuff people post that ignores fact and reason. 

 

Oh, it's also annoying that people who actually like and root for the Colts are desperately trying to legitimize nonsense rumors that he wants to be traded, but that's a different story.

 

And I do have it all figured out, obviously. 

[The Fish]

3 minutes ago, Roger said:

 

 

You seem exasperated by almost anything people post. 

 

 

Have you seen some of the amazingly bad takes people, including people here are having about this drama? Heck, you want Luck, Pipped, which is a pretty bad take (imo of course).

[The Fish]

14 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

 

The media forgets that this team is also dealing with arguably the worst injury situation in the league right now with many key players for this team out. 

Generally agree with your first point. I'd just add that we're hoping Ballard gets it right going forward.

 

This second point in so many ways is really the whole story, but that doesn't generate clicks. Saying Luck does/should/might want out is far more salacious. 

[Jason_]

On 9/13/2017 at 1:02 PM, indy1888 said:

 

No, it's not entirely different.  Manning suffered his setback before the regular season even started.  They knew the problem they had with him. They could have easily put him on I.R.   Sure, they "thought" Luck might return in 2015, kinda like they "think" Luck might return this year.

 

The reason the colts did not put Manning on IR is because the IR recall had not been established yet.  In 2011, if they had put Manning on IR he would have been forced to miss the entire season, even if he'd been ready to return in the final weeks.

 

On 9/13/2017 at 2:29 PM, coltsfansince65 said:

I don't have a problem believing this is all true. I'm not surprised at all with what his agent had said. What else would we expect him to say? It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Andrew playing for the 49ers next season.

 

You should have a big problem with this being true because if it were true, Luck would not have signed a 6 year extension last summer.

 

 

On 9/13/2017 at 6:37 PM, ThorstenDenmark said:

I would hate if the colts traded Luck away... but to be honest... not even Tom Brady could win with our current team or coach.

 

If I were in Andrew Lucks shoes, I would demand Chris Ballard to fire Pagano ASAP or be traded... I would chose to play where I wouldn't get hurt for every snap I would take.

 

Not if you signed the same 6 year contract extension that Luck did.  He has absolutely ZERO leverage to demand a trade. 

 

 

On 9/13/2017 at 8:57 PM, Freenyfan102 said:

I think Andrew luck actually does not want to be there

 

Once again, if that were true, why did he just last summer sign a 6 year contract?

 

On 9/14/2017 at 12:40 PM, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

I'm not saying Greenie's opinion has merit, but I've learned never to disregard rumors out of hand.  Feelers do get floated for reaction and agents' denials are part of the feeler.

 

We fans should also consider the possibility, however remote, that management may soon calculate that trading Andrew may be an important part of rebuilding the team. 

 

There are over 41 million reasons why the colts fanbase should not worry about that possibility.

 

 

20 hours ago, King Colt said:

You sit him if the doctor says sit him plus there are other factors being discussed on all the sports networks and sitting him is not an open and shut case. Fans don't matter.

 

sit him if the doctor says sit him...agreed but...duh.  the poster you were replying to did not say anything to the contrary.  the rest about sports networks matters about as much as the fans do

 

1 hour ago, Roger said:

Because you think you have it all figured out, we should not discuss this?

 

You seem exasperated by almost anything people post. 

 

No, because it barely takes 30 seconds worth of ACTUAL thought to know that these rumors are ridiculous.  Andrew Luck has been unhappy the past 2 years because he's been forced to play hurt?  that's absurd.  Last summer he signed a 6 year contract extension. 

 

If he's been unhappy for the last 2 years, why in god's name would he sign a 6 year extension?  Why would he agree to a contract that he couldn't try to get himself out of until probably 2019 at the very earliest?

 

one answer can apply to both of those questions, "He wouldn't"...and THAT's why this should not even be a discussion.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, J@son said:

No, because it barely takes 30 seconds worth of ACTUAL thought to know that these rumors are ridiculous

 

^^^

 

If Andrew Luck asked for a trade right now, the Colts would say no, bottom line. Trading him would leave the Colts with more than a $12m cap penalty in 2017, and trigger a $19.2m cap penalty in 2018. If he asked for a trade next offseason, the Colts would say no, bottom line, for similar reasons.

 

This sets aside the fact that you don't trade a franchise level QB in his prime when you have him signed long term. Bottom line.

 

His only recourse is to retire. And if he were to retire today, he'd have to pay back $25.6m of his $32m signing bonus, and the Colts would still have his rights for four more active seasons. This, also, will not happen.

 

So let's just say that Luck is absolutely livid at the Colts for whatever reason, legitimate or not. Let's say he's mad because they changed to a different brand of toilet paper, it doesn't matter why... He has zero leverage to force his way off the team. Bottom line.

 

I think a big part of this is Colts "fans" are excited about the idea that Luck would barge into Irsay's office, slam his fist on the desk and demand that Pagano is fired and the roster is immediately upgraded to championship level. They want Luck to use his status as the franchise QB to force staff changes, and to compel the team to build a better roster NOW. And we know Luck won't do any of that, but if he's mad enough... anything can happen, and then Pagano will be fired in front of a mob at LOS, on national TV, and then they'll cut Green and hang him upside down from the rafters, and suddenly all the Colts problems are solved and ESPN will respect us again.

 

If you dismiss logic, you can rationalize anything.

[Roger]

35 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

The reason the colts did not put Manning on IR is because the IR recall had not been established yet.  In 2011, if they had put Manning on IR he would have been forced to miss the entire season, even if he'd been ready to return in the final weeks.

 

 

You should have a big problem with this being true because if it were true, Luck would not have signed a 6 year extension last summer.

 

 

 

Not if you signed the same 6 year contract extension that Luck did.  He has absolutely ZERO leverage to demand a trade. 

 

 

 

Once again, if that were true, why did he just last summer sign a 6 year contract?

 

 

There are over 41 million reasons why the colts fanbase should not worry about that possibility.

 

 

 

sit him if the doctor says sit him...agreed but...duh.  the poster you were replying to did not say anything to the contrary.  the rest about sports networks matters about as much as the fans do

 

 

No, because it barely takes 30 seconds worth of ACTUAL thought to know that these rumors are ridiculous.  Andrew Luck has been unhappy the past 2 years because he's been forced to play hurt?  that's absurd.  Last summer he signed a 6 year contract extension. 

 

If he's been unhappy for the last 2 years, why in god's name would he sign a 6 year extension?  Why would he agree to a contract that he couldn't try to get himself out of until probably 2019 at the very earliest?

 

one answer can apply to both of those questions, "He wouldn't"...and THAT's why this should not even be a discussion.

I was discussing why Luck would prefer a long term contract to franchise tag.  Injury. It wasn't me who said he shouldn't have signed the extension. I happen to think he was smart to go that way.

[Roger]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Just stuff people post that ignores fact and reason. 

 

Oh, it's also annoying that people who actually like and root for the Colts are desperately trying to legitimize nonsense rumors that he wants to be traded, but that's a different story.

 

And I do have it all figured out, obviously. 

The post you replied to was my argument as to why Luck signed the extension.  You come in with your superior 'tude and exasperation that people are discussing Luck's situation. I believe players want to sign long term deals over franchise tag deals.

[HOF19]

A 49r fan called Mike Francesca and put a scenario up to Mike and Mike said that proposed scenario is EXTEMELY possible/probable Mike just now made a case that if in the upcoming draft the Colts had 4th overall pick in the draft and the 49r's have 1st overall pick in the draft The Colts would be in their rights to demand (in a trade for Luck ) the 49r's 1st overall pick and their 2018 2nd and 2018 3rd round pick giving Colts 1st pick in the draft.....4th pick in the draft 1st pick in 2nd and 3rd rounds plus all the Colts picks.....Quoting Francesca " If you do it right YOU COULD REBUILD TEAM IN 1 DRAFT " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, HOF19 said:

A 49r fan called Mike Francesca and put a scenario up to Mike and Mike said that proposed scenario is EXTEMELY possible/probable Mike just now made a case that if in the upcoming draft the Colts had 4th overall pick in the draft and the 49r's have 1st overall pick in the draft The Colts would be in their rights to demand (in a trade for Luck ) the 49r's 1st overall pick and their 2018 2nd and 2018 3rd round pick giving Colts 1st pick in the draft.....4th pick in the draft 1st pick in 2nd and 3rd rounds plus all the Colts picks.....Quoting Francesca " If you do it right YOU COULD REBUILD TEAM IN 1 DRAFT " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

SMH

[HOF19]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

SMH

Do not know who is right or wrong but living in NY Metro area listening to Francesca I do not know a bigger Luck fan ON THIS PLANET than Mike Francesca.....He was raving about Luck a YEAR AND A HALF TO TWO YEARS before Luck was drafted.