Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?

[richard pallo]

19 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i voted no, but hypothetically what would a trade for luck even look like?

 

 

Hypothetically speaking of course:  Luck to the Skins for Cousins and a first in 18 and 19. They haven't wanted to pay Cousins. We have the cap space to do it and Luck is already under contract for them.  I voted Hell No  BTW. 

[Aluckiswolverine]

[BPindy]

36 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

See, that's the thing, people assume we will have him another 10 years and that's not likely to happen. First, he'll have to play til he's 38-39, and that's not real likely. Second, The fact that he's gotten knocked around like a pinball for the first 5 years of his career has already taken a massive toll on his body. It's unlikely he'll make it 10 more years. Third, Luck isn't getting much better, if at all. He still holds on to the ball too long, is somewhat turnover prone, and is very susceptible to slow starts in games. That may not be fixable even if Pagano goes. Lastly, he may not want to stay with us 10 more years. We can franchise tag him and all that, but that may work against us actually winning a SB at the end of his career, and that'll truly be Luck's ultimate goal before his career is all said and done.

 

Luck had his most efficient year last year, and that was playing through this shoulder injury. I'm more confident in him playing well for even another 5-6 years than I am picking up another solid franchise QB in the draft. So many busts/journeyman types that don't prove anything. Hence why the Jags and Browns have been stuck for years. 

 

Just as you say we can't know that Luck will play another 10 years, we absolutely don't know that those hypothetical 3 first rounders (which no one would give us) will get us another QB. 

 

Im all about everyone having a price, except when it comes to a QB of Lucks caliber

[Thorolf]

The last time the Colts did something like trading an injured quarterback , the quarterback went to Denver and promptly won them a Superbowl! Do we never learn?!

[The Peytonator]

For 10,000 first round picks, yeah I’d probably take that trade. At least consider it. 

[superrep1967]

1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

How about no he's prolly fine. they are being cautious and they should be Chuck sucks anyway and so does the line we are in no rush to bring him back 

Exactly!!!!!!

[Yoshinator]

27 minutes ago, BPindy said:

 

Luck had his most efficient year last year, and that was playing through this shoulder injury. I'm more confident in him playing well for even another 5-6 years than I am picking up another solid franchise QB in the draft. So many busts/journeyman types that don't prove anything. Hence why the Jags and Browns have been stuck for years. 

 

Just as you say we can't know that Luck will play another 10 years, we absolutely don't know that those hypothetical 3 first rounders (which no one would give us) will get us another QB. 

 

Im all about everyone having a price, except when it comes to a QB of Lucks caliber

Basically, my plan would be too get a QB 7 years younger in the best QB class in a long time. Have Ballard do his due diligence, and pick the right one. The top defensive player we receive will be a hit, and we can use the extra two 1st rounders to build the O-Line. I just don't have confidence Luck can overcome this offensive line how it is. If it had improved, then I'd be all for going for it with Luck, but without one, he is susceptible to injury again, and he takes a long time to release the ball as it is. Would rather rip the band-aid off and start over with a chance at Darnold. Of course, with Luck having a setback, we may get a high pick anyway, and it'll work itself out.

[OLD FAN MAN]

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Honestly, probably not, but anyone is tradeable for the right price, and as a GM, that's how Ballard should look at it. Just by seeing how people are flat out saying no shows they couldn't succeed as a GM in the NFL. Always entertain offers, the number 1 rule. For three 1sts and a top defensive player (Leonard Williams as a hypothetical example), I'd do it in a heartbeat. Luck is 28, and he'll be 29 before we are in shape to do anything meaningful. If you can get the value, do it.

dont think we could trade a sore arm qb

[BPindy]

38 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Basically, my plan would be too get a QB 7 years younger in the best QB class in a long time. Have Ballard do his due diligence, and pick the right one. The top defensive player we receive will be a hit, and we can use the extra two 1st rounders to build the O-Line. I just don't have confidence Luck can overcome this offensive line how it is. If it had improved, then I'd be all for going for it with Luck, but without one, he is susceptible to injury again, and he takes a long time to release the ball as it is. Would rather rip the band-aid off and start over with a chance at Darnold. Of course, with Luck having a setback, we may get a high pick anyway, and it'll work itself out.

 

In a perfect world, sure. But the line wouldn't be "fixed" in time for whatever QB we bring in, and he would be just as likely to get injured as Luck behind our line. I'm just not on board trading a sure thing at the most important position in sports when drafted QBs are so hit and miss

[JColts72]

With damaged shoulder and that contract? No way...

[FalseStart]

2 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

Why should we do something that dumb? Ballard and Irsay would be chased out of town if they even thought about doing that 

Because... teams win championships. Not necessarily a QB... think Seattle, Denver, Giants, Steelers...early Pats championships the QBs playing in these games were not playing elite football...the defenses were...A pretty good offensive football team with a great defense wins. We could have a great Defense...with an experienced QB in 2 years. Topic was meant to see if we still are hanging on to that Peyton Manning (A Great QB) era...of winning regular season games.  Luck is Better than Eli Manning but not Ben Rothlisberger... Eli and Ben had a great defense...in their respective championship years. More recently they are having to rely on their QB play Just like all these Colts teams... not working out as well. Aaron Rodgers, Great great QB, 1 championship. Topic is meant for debate. Thanks all...Cheers 

[mahagga73]

First off , nobody would trade for him now because he's starting to miss a ton of games with injury and nobody knows what he's going to be like after he comes back . But I was just thinking today it would be an interesting scenario if they were so bad they got a high enough pick to get Rosen or another of the 3 or 4 QB in this class , which is considered pretty good. It would have to be real tempting to take one . Only thing Luck has been doing lately is modeling the newest Nike merchandise on the sidelines.  This guy might never complete a season again .  Also , they appear to be a few years drafts and such getting to being even competitive in the conference . Is Luck going to last that long?  This whole scenario reminds this Colts fan of Bert Jones breaking down after a few years and never regaining it again as the Colts slowly became a laughingstock. 

[Yoshinator]

28 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

dont think we could trade a sore arm qb

Haha, probably not. We live in a different world now then when this thread was started  

[Yoshinator]

14 minutes ago, BPindy said:

 

In a perfect world, sure. But the line wouldn't be "fixed" in time for whatever QB we bring in, and he would be just as likely to get injured as Luck behind our line. I'm just not on board trading a sure thing at the most important position in sports when drafted QBs are so hit and miss

I think the only real area we differ is the number of years that we expect Luck to play here still. You are hoping 9-10, while I expect only 5-6, which is the main reasoning behind me wanting to possibly trade Luck. If Luck was healthy, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Unfortunately, he isn't though.

[OLD FAN MAN]

6 minutes ago, mahagga73 said:

First off , nobody would trade for him now because he's starting to miss a ton of games with injury and nobody knows what he's going to be like after he comes back . But I was just thinking today it would be an interesting scenario if they were so bad they got a high enough pick to get Rosen or another of the 3 or 4 QB in this class , which is considered pretty good. It would have to be real tempting to take one . Only thing Luck has been doing lately is modeling the newest Nike merchandise on the sidelines.  This guy might never complete a season again .  Also , they appear to be a few years drafts and such getting to being even competitive in the conference . Is Luck going to last that long?  This whole scenario reminds this Colts fan of Bert Jones breaking down after a few years and never regaining it again as the Colts slowly became a laughingstock. 

good post, i agree

[OLD FAN MAN]

10 minutes ago, JColts72 said:

With damaged shoulder and that contract? No way...

i concur

[mahagga73]

2 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

good post, i agree

These people are dismissing it offhand without thinking about the draft position they are likely to get in , the state of the team , which is subpar , and the likelihood he is even going to last long enough to get us anywhere . Im not saying it is happening , cause it probably won't , he may be just fine.  But the scenarios at play , I wouldn't completely dismiss it . What if he can't make the throws anymore ? 

[GoColts8818]

The cap hit alone from trading Andrew Luck makes trading him an unrealistic idea.

[GoColts8818]

9 minutes ago, mahagga73 said:

These people are dismissing it offhand without thinking about the draft position they are likely to get in , the state of the team , which is subpar , and the likelihood he is even going to last long enough to get us anywhere . Im not saying it is happening , cause it probably won't , he may be just fine.  But the scenarios at play , I wouldn't completely dismiss it . What if he can't make the throws anymore ? 

Then no team would trade for him.  Teams figure that stuff out before they trade for a guy.

 

from there his contract makes it nearly impossible to trade him.

[FalseStart]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

Hypothetically speaking of course:  Luck to the Skins for Cousins and a first in 18 and 19. They haven't wanted to pay Cousins. We have the cap space to do it and Luck is already under contract for them.  I voted Hell No  BTW. 

6 Picks in the first two rounds over the next two years would fix a lot of issues... nice post.

[mahagga73]

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Then no team would trade for him.  Teams figure that stuff out before they trade for a guy.

 

from there his contract makes it nearly impossible to trade him.

 

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Then no team would trade for him.  Teams figure that stuff out before they trade for a guy.

 

from there his contract makes it nearly impossible to trade him.

If it becomes apparent he has a chronic issue by draft day and they are sitting there with a top QB available you got to draft him . I dont care what the rest of the roster looks like , that position overrides everything.  Then you can figure it out after that.  

[ColtsBlitz]

Is this what 2-4 looks like?

[FalseStart]

2 hours ago, BPindy said:

 

If you have the rare gift of having a legitimate stud franchise QB for another 9-10 years, you absolutely do not trade him. 

Is he really a rare gift? Only two QBs I would put in the category. Rodgers and Brady... How many games has he or will he have missed in his career? ~20-30... IMO that is tradeable. With his health record 9-10 years would be a stretch. Thanks for your input though... Go Colts!

[FalseStart]

3 minutes ago, ColtsBlitz said:

Is this what 2-4 looks like?

No. This is what 18-20 looks like. Go Colts!

[mahagga73]

2 hours ago, Flash7 said:

You can't trade him unless he's healthy. If he's healthy, why would you want to trade him? He's just getting into his prime.

Very true.  But the fact they are likely to have a shot at a top QB prospect in a  very good class complicates things. If he looks off at all I draft a QB anyway and worry about it later.  You can't win without one unless you have a super dominant defense.  

[mahagga73]

4 minutes ago, FalseStart said:

Is he really a rare gift? Only two QBs I would put in the category. Rodgers and Brady... How many games has he or will he have missed in his career? ~20-30... IMO that is tradeable. With his health record 9-10 years would be a stretch. Thanks for your input though... Go Colts!

He's very good but some of these people on here think he's in that class. 

[azcolt]

2 hours ago, Thorolf said:

The last time the Colts did something like trading an injured quarterback , the quarterback went to Denver and promptly won them a Superbowl! Do we never learn?!

During the Super Bowl winning year the Broncos won in spite of the quarterbacking, not because of it. But nice try at rewriting history.

[mahagga73]

6 minutes ago, FalseStart said:

Is he really a rare gift? Only two QBs I would put in the category. Rodgers and Brady... How many games has he or will he have missed in his career? ~20-30... IMO that is tradeable. With his health record 9-10 years would be a stretch. Thanks for your input though... Go Colts!

He hasn't even lasted 6 and he spends most his days with a baseball hat on the sidelines.  

[FalseStart]

2 hours ago, Thorolf said:

The last time the Colts did something like trading an injured quarterback , the quarterback went to Denver and promptly won them a Superbowl! Do we never learn?!

No he did not... he was beaten by The Seattle Seahawks Defense badly (Russell Wilson-Average QB play...) Peyton was a below average QB when he won... he won because of that elite Bronco defense.

[ReMeDy]

11 minutes ago, FalseStart said:

No he did not... he was beaten by The Seattle Seahawks Defense badly (Russell Wilson-Average QB play...) Peyton was a below average QB when he won... he won because of that elite Bronco defense.

 

Yea, and now that I think on it, during our Superbowl against the Saints he didn't show up to play then either. Even against the Bears, we might not have won it if it wasn't for how bad Rex Grossman was.

 

I love Peyton and all, but he is just not a very good Superbowl QB.

[NewColtsFan]

49 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Then no team would trade for him.  Teams figure that stuff out before they trade for a guy.

 

from there his contract makes it nearly impossible to trade him.

 

Thanks,  GC8818....

 

I just scrolled through this entire silly thread and you're the ONLY poster who got the right answer!

 

This is a lose-lose trade for both sides.

 

1.    No team would trade for Luck right now.    They don't know how healthy (or not) he is.    And no team is giving up a huge haul to get Luck.    Certainly NOT three #1's and a top defensive player.       That's what you get for Luck when he's healthy.      You don't get that when he's NOT healthy. 

 

2.    The Colts can't trade him for the next two years, at least.     His Dead Cap Hit to the team is huge.   $22.2 next year.    And $12.8 Mill the year after that.      So, for the Colts,  Andrew Luck is NOT tradable.    Oh, and the hit in 2020 is over $6 MIll.

 

It's not happening.     Not in anyone's imaginary world.     Luck and the Colts are MARRIED to each other.    At least two more years      Deal with it.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/andrew-luck-9811/

 

And we're not getting a #1 from anyone for Jacoby Brissett.      That's not happening either.

 

[GoColts8818]

40 minutes ago, mahagga73 said:

 

If it becomes apparent he has a chronic issue by draft day and they are sitting there with a top QB available you got to draft him . I dont care what the rest of the roster looks like , that position overrides everything.  Then you can figure it out after that.  

That’s great but they aren’t trading Luck largely because they can’t as NewColtFan laid out very clearly in the above post.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Honestly, probably not, but anyone is tradeable for the right price, and as a GM, that's how Ballard should look at it. Just by seeing how people are flat out saying no shows they couldn't succeed as a GM in the NFL. Always entertain offers, the number 1 rule. For three 1sts and a top defensive player (Leonard Williams as a hypothetical example), I'd do it in a heartbeat. Luck is 28, and he'll be 29 before we are in shape to do anything meaningful. If you can get the value, do it.

 

Jared.....

 

Count how many posts you made in this thread.      You're the number one poster in this thread and in NONE OF THEM, did you manage to come up with the right answer.      Not once.

 

Andrew Luck is not getting traded for two reasons:

 

1.     He's injured so no team is trading a huge haul for him.    The three 1's and a top defensive player is what you'd get for Luck when he's healthy.      Andrew Luck is not healthy now.

 

2.     The Dead Cap Hit to the Colts would be enormous.     $22.2 Mill in 2018.     12.8 Mill in 2019.    It's over $6 Mill in 2020.        That makes trading Luck impossible.

 

The combination of both of these things means all this discussion has been a waste of everyone's time.     This trade is not happening.      It's NEVER happening.      We're not waking up to find that Luck has been traded.

 

Everything else is just nonsense.....

 

Oh,   and you were wrong about Luck not getting better.     He got better last year.     And the NFL history shows QB's can still get better later in life.      Like Randall Cunningham,  like Brad Johnson.   like Kurt Warner,   like Rich Gannon.      QB's can, and do get better with age.

 

 

[FalseStart]

3 hours ago, NewEra said:

Log off from the forum....walk outside and throw yourself on the ground

Ok. But when they start Changing their stance from Trust the Process to Trust the Prognosis... I'll make sure to catch you when you fall... Trust fall... ha.

[FalseStart]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Jared.....

 

Count how many posts you made in this thread.      You're the number one poster in this thread and in NONE OF THEM, did you manage to come up with the right answer.      Not once.

 

Andrew Luck is not getting traded for two reasons:

 

1.     He's injured so no team is trading a huge haul for him.    The three 1's and a top defensive player is what you'd get for Luck when he's healthy.      Andrew Luck is not healthy now.

 

2.     The Dead Cap Hit to the Colts would be enormous.     $22.2 Mill in 2018.     12.8 Mill in 2019.    It's over $6 Mill in 2020.        That makes trading Luck impossible.

 

The combination of both of these things means all this discussion has been a waste of everyone's time.     This trade is not happening.      It's NEVER happening.      We're not waking up to find that Luck has been traded.

 

Everything else is just nonsense.....

 

Oh,   and you were wrong about Luck not getting better.     He got better last year.     And the NFL history shows QB's can still get better later in life.      Like Randall Cunningham,  like Brad Johnson.   like Kurt Warner,   like Rich Gannon.      QB's can, and do get better with age.

 

 

Good information. But 8-8 is 8-8...x 2 years. (see both Houston Texans games 2016 for reference)  Also, GMs and contracts find a way.  Thanks for the input. Always appreciate your view.

[BPindy]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think the only real area we differ is the number of years that we expect Luck to play here still. You are hoping 9-10, while I expect only 5-6, which is the main reasoning behind me wanting to possibly trade Luck. If Luck was healthy, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Unfortunately, he isn't though.

 

Fair enough! 

[IndyScribe]

And setback the franchise even more? If that's your plan, sure. Franchise QBs(especially those like Luck) don't grow on trees.

[BPindy]

1 hour ago, FalseStart said:

Is he really a rare gift? Only two QBs I would put in the category. Rodgers and Brady... How many games has he or will he have missed in his career? ~20-30... IMO that is tradeable. With his health record 9-10 years would be a stretch. Thanks for your input though... Go Colts!

 

Well, relatively he is. When you go from Favre to Rodgers or Manning to Luck it's easy to get spoiled, but to the Jets, Browns, Jags, etc he absolutely is a rare gift. There are a lot of teams that haven't had a franchise guy in years, and that's because the draft is a dart board for the most part. I agree that Luck isn't in a league of his own or anything and has missed a lot of games, but he's still precious cargo from other teams' perspectives.

[NewColtsFan]

25 minutes ago, FalseStart said:

Good information. But 8-8 is 8-8...x 2 years. (see both Houston Texans games 2016 for reference)  Also, GMs and contracts find a way.  Thanks for the input. Always appreciate your view.

 

So,  8-8 x2 is enough to get you to trade Luck?

 

Really?       Seriously?

 

[WoolMagnet]

4 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

I thought I was old enough to excpect any unexpected, but honestly, this topic caught me off guard.

Welcome to the bizarro world of the Colts message board.

never a dull moment.

at any time, the oompa loompas will come out to add milk and sugar to the chocolate river.