So Here Is A What If For You

[UndecidedFrog]

Arg.. no. Good grief.

So Luck has no injuries? I seem to recall a knee issue..

1) future HOF QB that has proven himself neck issue

2) college QB with uncertine future with knee issues

Im just stating you cant compare apples to oranges. Trading the first round pick would be idotic. However when making the argument on why, compairing it to the Harbaugh situation isnt the best example. Imo.

You are mistaken.

Luck has no knee injury.

RG3 had an ACL his sophomore year.

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/4485-andrew-lucks-knee-merge/

[braveheartcolt]

Arg.. no. Good grief.

So Luck has no injuries? I seem to recall a knee issue..

1) future HOF QB that has proven himself neck issue

2) college QB with uncertine future with knee issues

Im just stating you cant compare apples to oranges. Trading the first round pick would be idotic. However when making the argument on why, compairing it to the Harbaugh situation isnt the best example. Imo.

I think it's a very good example. Risk assessment and going for the least risky option makes a huge amount of sense. And I'm a neutral.....

[DILLIGAFER]

You are mistaken.

Luck has no knee injury.

RG3 had an ACL his sophomore year.

So.. why then does Luck where that brace on his left knee? Kicks and giggles i guess..

[DILLIGAFER]

I think it's a very good example. Risk assessment and going for the least risky option makes a huge amount of sense. And I'm a neutral.....

Pretty sure you just missed my point.

[Balzer40]

Good Lord, I wish they would hurry up and announce whatever is going to happen to Manning so people would shut the (you know what) up about this subject.

The bottom line is, Luck will be a Colt next season and Manning very likely will not be.

Hopefully the decision will weed out the one's so frickin obsessed with Manning and what happens to him so we can move on and talk about the future direction of the team without all the incessant whining.

[oldunclemark]

Say we had traded the Manning pick for more picks like some people want us to do now.

That would have left us with Jim Harbaugh at QB and my guess is that we would have targetted either Andre Wadsworth (third over all pick) or Grant Wistrim (6th) overall pick by trading back to get us a pass rushing end to improve our defense because we really had a hole there at the time.

We would have also stuck with Jim Harbaugh at QB who played four more years (and never had a season remotely close to the year he had in 1995). So that probably means we would have targetted a QB in probably the 2002 draft in which the top two picks were David Carr and Joey Harrington at the QB poistion. Perhaps the best QB to come out of that draft was David Garrard.

Knowing what we know now it seems like the smart move was to just take the guy that many felt was the best player in the draft Peyton Manning and not trading back. Just something to think about for those saying we should trade back. There is no promise that the picks we would get in return wont be busts themselves and that they would be better than the guy you would be passing on to move back and that when it's time to take a QB that the QBs who are going to be there are going to be as good as the guy you are passing on now.

Just a different way to look at this. It sounds like this is all a moute point if the reports about the Colts maybe looking into signing Luck early are true this is a done deal.

Interesting..

Kinda like...'How would history have changed if Kennedy hadnt gone to Dallas in 1963'...

If you think the QB is the most important position on the team..and you have issues at the position...

the safe move is to take the best QB available..

[pacolts56]

I think the fundamental difference here is that we don't know what we have now. We just don't. Is this the HoF Peyton? Is it going to be a worse, but still upper tier Peyton? How long until his arm strength comes back? I think pretending Peyton is still going to be Peyton is as foolish as pretending he absolutely won't be.

Not to mention that we're using the looking glass of hindsight. Of course in hindsight we'll look back and say "Good thing we didn't trade back." But San Diego doesn't regret trading back from Vick to Tomlinson. Trading back from the #1 pick can payoff, so it's foolish to base it off of our last chance to do so. Hindsight is a better judge, but we can't ever approach a situation looking at it in hindsight. We can only judge but 'at this time'. Basing one possible outcome off of an arbitrary other makes no sense. You can just as easily say "Look at would happen here" as I can say "Look at how well it turned out for San Diego." The difference is that we're not talking about Vick and Tomlinson, NFL veterans. We're talking about probably Luck and someone that we can't name right now, NFL Rookies-to-be. All different players with different dynamics.

Besides, we're assuming that the Colts would have a.)traded back to a position to still pick those guys up, and b.) that the Colts would have taken them. Do we know what Polian's board looked like? Did Polian always draft for the most evident need? (the argument that he drafted for need itself makes some sense, however.) Maybe he would have taken Charles Woodson to challenge previous Polian first round DBs Poole and Jeff Burris. Besides, any team trading for the #1 would have taken Manning or Leaf, and one could easily argue no team between #2 and #6 would have made the trade, leaving the draft much the same way as it actually happened.

Basically, I'd need to see the hypothetical partner before I could make the hypothetical leap.

Here's one, Rexall, that at least has some plausibility to it given the teams in position to move up that year.

First of all.... should we skip the formalities and induct Andrew Luck into the NFL Hall of Fame right now? Of course not, and we all know that.

But I think the original poster operated from a pretty sound premise as to the scenario.... 20/20 hindsight or not.... of the deep disappointment that would have resulted from us trading the #1 pick in 1998.

And one look at the 1998 selection in Rounds 1 & 2, IMO, solidly confirms that. When I look at the players taken.... only Charles Woodson and Randy Moss, and I'm talking talent level at their positions, even belong in any realistic discussion of what may have resulted from a remotely successful trade down of the Manning pick.

The Raiders had 3 picks out of the first 31 picks that year.... and even though the Raiders had none other than Jeff Goerge coming off a pretty good season (statistically).... we'll play out the hypothetical trade down under the most Colts-friendly scenario, just for argument's sake.

And we'll even say that Al Davis was in a generous mood and traded us the #4, #23 and #31 pick for the 1st overall pick which would have been overpaying by the trade chart, and given the lesser hype back then and the now-ridiculous Manning/Leaf comparisons.

The 3 best players available at those selections were Charles Woodson, Randy Moss (but Moss only at #4 overall out of the picks in this scenario), probably Alan Faneca at #23.... feel free to fill in the blank at pick #31, because I couldn't find an available player who would have in any way balanced this scenario in our favor.

With perfect 20/20 hindsight.... we would have wound up with either Charles Woodson or Randy Moss at #4 (not both), Alan Faneca at #23.... and who knows who at #31. Some may suggest Fred Taylor at #4.... but we still had Marshall Faulk, so that isn't realisitic.

So basically.....

#4 Charles Woodson.... terrific CB and a probable future HoFer. This assumes Polian would have valued a CB at #4 overall and thats an open question as you noted. Hopefully he would have in Woodson's case.

OR

#4 - Randy Moss..... great WR, but off-field antics made this simply unrealistic. Plus, Moss + Bill Polian = HAZMAT explosion and sooner or later, probably sooner, Moss would have been gone. Talent-wise Moss certainly belongs at #4 or higher. It just wasn't gonna happen.

#23 - Alan Faneca.... excellent OG probably selected at the proper spot (Steelers at #26) given his position, but #23 wouldn't have been a bad pick and plausible with our 1998 people at OG.

#31 - Who the heck knows? Look at the 1998 draft and tell me.

Now.... is anyone sorry we didn't trade down and hand the Peyton Manning era over to the Raiders?

I totally accept that Andrew Luck is not a proven commodity at the NFL level.... and I love draft speculation and projecting player greatness as much as anyone.

But the aspect of this debate that suggests a trade down is every bit the risk that selecting Luck is.... probably much more. And there isn't a better illustration of it than our own 1998 draft, as GoColts8818 originally noted. This illustration factors in the best possible deal and the best available players actually getting selected.... and it still falls way short. And forget about any other trade that would have brought us a "Ricky Williams" type package.... it wouldn't have mattered.

Even if Morris Claiborne equals the career of Charles Woodson, which is in no way a guarantee, its all a crapshoot. And when a consensus #1 pick is traded down.... that team better be right about every prospect they traded down for, and pitfalls exist with those lower picks.... such as the targeted players being off the board.

We could trade down with Cleveland and watch Claiborne go #3 overall to Minnesota.... right?

With the rookie salary cap, and circumstances PERHAPS suggesting that maybe Manning could rework his deal to a 1-2 year incentive based contract.... and by some stroke of the unknown.... both camps in this discussion have a happier ending. Its a remote possibility, and I don't expect it, but it is possible.

No prior example will exactly match our situation today.... but as it stands, forgoing the selection of Andrew Luck carries plenty of risk and makes almost no sense whatsoever. IMO

[WSO]

Omg, if Manning was 100% WE WOULDNT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!

And leave it to the luck lover to bring the surgery argument into this and it has no value here in this thread.

How does the surgery value have no argument? People are saying you can't compare Harbaugh to Manning because Manning is a HOF and Harbaugh was average. That would make sense if Manning was healthy. Since he isn't, we have no idea how Manning will return therefore he is a big question mark. He isn't guaranteed to come back and liught it up. At least with Harbaugh the Colts knew what they would get out of him in 1998 if they didn't take Manning. We don't know what we are going to get out of Manning until he plays that first game.

[UndecidedFrog]

So.. why then does Luck where that brace on his left knee? Kicks and giggles i guess..

Luck, and all QBs that have had Jim Harbaugh as their coach, wear a plant leg knee brace to prevent MCL tears.

See this link for a full discussion, along with excerpts from an interview about these knee braces with Harbaugh:

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/4485-andrew-lucks-knee-merge/

[WSO]

So.. why then does Luck where that brace on his left knee? Kicks and giggles i guess..

Harbaugh makes ALL his quarterbacks wear a brace on their knees. It won't completely stop a torn ACL or MCL or whatever but it can lessen the severity. Alex Smith wears one. C'mon this should be common knowledge by now.

[bayone]

You are mistaken.

Luck has no knee injury.

RG3 had an ACL his sophomore year.

http://forums.colts....cks-knee-merge/

I dont know where, wasnt on the forum, but in discussing both QB's health ,a knee injury in lucks past was mentioned, its significance, that is its level of degree was not so may be minor, this was a regular sports network, sorry no link

However i do not think from what i remember that lucks injury was esp compared to RG3 ACL and they also said RG3 shouldnt have problems from said injury per se but that his build is not that of Cam Newton so he may take more punishment his body & knee cant handle if he does run

also when u google luck & read some articles the only injury i see as actually being noted is

Luck injured a finger on his throwing hand in the Cardinal's final regular season game against Notre Dame. He had surgery prior to the Sun Bowl and did not play in the game , thats in 2009

[UndecidedFrog]

I dont know where, wasnt on the forum, but in discussing both QB's health ,a knee injury in lucks past was definitely mentioned, this was a regular sports network, sorry no link

You and they are mistaken,

BP confused RG3's ACL tear and attributed it to Luck. You can search for any mention of any knee issues with Luck, and you will find nothing.

[WSO]

Andrew Luck has never suffered a knee injury. Just stop. This is reaching. There was a big thread on this not too long ago on our own forum

[DILLIGAFER]

Harbaugh makes ALL his quarterbacks wear a brace on their knees. It won't completely stop a torn ACL or MCL or whatever but it can lessen the severity. Alex Smith wears one. C'mon this should be common knowledge by now.

Excuse me.... This isnt common knowledge.. btw.

[DILLIGAFER]

Good Lord, I wish they would hurry up and announce whatever is going to happen to Manning so people would shut the (you know what) up about this subject.

The bottom line is, Luck will be a Colt next season and Manning very likely will not be.

Hopefully the decision will weed out the one's so frickin obsessed with Manning and what happens to him so we can move on and talk about the future direction of the team without all the incessant whining.

Obsessed with Manning? Hes our freaking QB. If anything i wish people would shut it about a college qb that isnt even a colt and whinning on how awesome he is. Im so glad we have you to look into your luck colored glasses to let us Manning obsessors know we should move on. So glad your here..

[bayone]

I dont know where, wasnt on the forum, but in discussing both QB's health ,a knee injury in lucks past was mentioned, its significance, that is its level of degree was not so may be minor, this was a regular sports network, sorry no link

However i do not think from what i remember that lucks injury was esp compared to RG3 ACL and they also said RG3 shouldnt have problems from said injury per se but that his build is not that of Cam Newton so he may take more punishment his body & knee cant handle if he does run

also when u google luck & read some articles the only injury i see as actually being noted is

Luck injured a finger on his throwing hand in the Cardinal's final regular season game against Notre Dame. He had surgery prior to the Sun Bowl and did not play in the game , thats in 2009

You and they are mistaken,

BP confused RG3's ACL tear and attributed it to Luck. You can search for any mention of any knee issues with Luck, and you will find nothing.

I dont know who BP is

I indicated thats lucks knee may have been of so little significance that it never was mentioned again , nor reported again, N But do know i had read that at 1 time

I indicated that when u google luck & his injuries only that 2009 finger comes up so

so Basically we were in agreement , no need to nit pick

[UndecidedFrog]

I dont know who BP is

I indicated thats lucks knee may have been of so little significance that it never was mentioned again , nor reported again, N But do know i had read that at 1 time

I indicated that when u google luck & his injuries only that 2009 finger comes up so

so Basically we were in agreement , no need to nit pick

BP is Polian the elder.

Yes, as mentioned in the thread about Luck's knees here: http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/4485-andrew-lucks-knee-merge/

since his finger break in 2009, he went 23-3 in his 2010 and 2011 seasons. Some might even conclude that he should break more fingers if they result in such performances after the fact.

I wasn't nick picking, I was merely sharing the truth.

[Balzer40]

Obsessed with Manning? Hes our freaking QB. If anything i wish people would shut it about a college qb that isnt even a colt and whinning on how awesome he is. Im so glad we have you to look into your luck colored glasses to let us Manning obsessors know we should move on. So glad your here..

Your entire statement makes so little sense it's almost embarrassing. First of all nobody whines about how awesome something is(no matter what it is you're talking about). That would be an oxymoron

Secondly, when did "Luck" become a color? So im not really sure what "Luck colored glasses" would even be. Are they green? The color of a lucky 4 leaf clover. Red? The color of his college team. Blue? The color of his future uniform in Indy, or maybe even yellow? The color of jealosy, that so many fans seem to have towards him.

[The Fish]

Oxy^fool^....lol

[Jaric]

So.. why then does Luck where that brace on his left knee? Kicks and giggles i guess..

Because his former coach (Harbaugh) told him to wear one for stability and support. This was all addressed in the thread talking about it.

[DILLIGAFER]

Your entire statement makes so little sense it's almost embarrassing. First of all nobody whines about how awesome something is(no matter what it is you're talking about). That would be an oxym-o-r-o-n.

Secondly, when did "Luck" become a color? So im not really sure what "Luck colored glasses" would even be. Are they green? The color of a lucky 4 leaf clover. Red? The color of his college team. Blue? The color of his future uniform in Indy, or maybe even yellow? The color of jealosy, that so many fans seem to have towards him.

Calling someone a ^fool^ is a fast quick sure way of getting your hind end kicked off this forum. Whos the well, you know, now?

[bayone]

I dont know who BP is

I indicated thats lucks knee may have been of so little significance that it never was mentioned again , nor reported again, N But do know i had read that at 1 time

I indicated that when u google luck & his injuries only that 2009 finger comes up so

so Basically we were in agreement , no need to nit pick

BP is Polian the elder.

Yes, as mentioned in the thread about Luck's knees here: http://forums.colts....cks-knee-merge/

since his finger break in 2009, he went 23-3 in his 2010 and 2011 seasons. Some might even conclude that he should break more fingers if they result in such performances after the fact.

I wasn't nick picking, I was merely sharing the truth.

I didntt know who BP is as thought u meant another site member, stupid me & before these I said II know forum never said it

Correctring me based on what I said Thats semantics not telling me the truth

as I indicated in first of my posts thats lucks knee may have been of so little significance that it never was mentioned again , nor reported again, But do know i had read that at 1 time

I indicated that when u google luck & his injuries only that 2009 finger comes up so

Maybe we just read things differently but as said was in agreement with u

sorry cant continue all these as have priorities, wish i didn't, , that's why took few hrs to get back to u , oh I meant 1hr 42 minutes, dont want semantics to get me misunderstood again as 2 hrs is a generality, guess really have to be specific at times

[MR. Blueblood]

I did see your post. Your assumption is that Luck is a franchise quarterback worth far more than you could ever get in trade. That remains to be seen but frankly I am extremely skeptical.

Never would've guessed that based on your picture.

My question to you is if/when Luck is brought here and he leads this team on the field, are you going to be a Colts fan and cheer for him or are you going to be a Manning fan and root for him to fail?

[HGRekks]

Here's one, Rexall, that at least has some plausibility to it given the teams in position to move up that year.

First of all.... should we skip the formalities and induct Andrew Luck into the NFL Hall of Fame right now? Of course not, and we all know that.

I erased the rest of this for a reason. You either missed my point or I didn't make it well enough, with the latter being most plausible.

The point isn't just the Manning trade, and I never said it'd made sense. It was that we don't know what it'd look like at the time. We're judging in hindsight and not in the there and then. This is why I compared it to the Vick situation as well, which you don't address. That was a good trade down.

The concept is flawed not because no one else in the first round would have added up to Peyton (and, by the way, the 'no Peyton' scenario would undoubtedly lead to different records, picks, probably schemes, etc.), but rather because this is not Peyton and the 1998 Draft. If we base every decision on what happened or might have happened at this time in the past, we end up applying those attributes to guys now who are not those guys. I never argued that Peyton wasn't a good pick, but rather that it's irrational to pretend that there was no scenario that could have ended up well. We're looking at one draft and basing it on what picks we'd make then (something we don't really now), while also ignoring the future. Who would they have taken in the 1999 Draft? 2000? 2001? Teams have won without Peyton Manning.

Don't get me wrong. I'm beyond happy we took Manning, but I think people are looking at the way the team was built around Manning and thinking a trade back and other players would have meant doom. There is no way of knowing.

Aside from that distraction, I think my larger point was that this is not that. You're looking at the 1998 as the best illustration, but who decides that? We're looking in hindsight and we don't know how this will look. What if we DID trade back and ended up like the Vick/Tomlinson trade? Would it still be the best illustration? The Chargers weren't right about every pick they got from that trade. They missed on Tay Cody and Reche Caldwell and traded away a consensus #1 pick. Was that a mistake? I disregard the notion that one scenario is better than the other, because both are plausible.

That's not to say that I don't take a side. I'm all for drafting Luck and against trading the pick. I just think it's illogical to selectively compare the pick to Peyton Manning and the 1998 Draft. He's not Peyton Manning and these guys aren't those guys. Is it possible they will be similar? Sure, but it's just as absurd as comparing it to Vick for Tomlinson, Caldwell, and Cody or Eli for Rivers, Merriman, and Kaeding. Why is the Manning pick, arguably the best QB in NFL history, most comparable to trading the Luck pick? It's an unrealistic comparison and one made arbitrarily to make one's own point. Any argument framing two situations as the same or similar and the possible outcome of a past event featuring a 'what if' with a present event that only exist on paper as of this moment does not take into context the vast dynamics that go into any given situation. We can play a million 'what if' games, though it's absurd to imagine that a majority of people will come to one common conclusion, or that it will be a right one.

[GoColts8818]

So.. why then does Luck where that brace on his left knee? Kicks and giggles i guess..

Peyton wears a brace and has never had a knee injury...

[ruksak]

Peyton wears a brace and has never had a knee injury...

Yep. That's often a proactive preventative measure.

[UndecidedFrog]

Yep. That's often a proactive preventative measure.

LOL, when Peyton wears it, it is a preventative measure.

When Luck wears it, it is a sign of previous injury.

Amazing.

[ruksak]

LOL, when Peyton wears it, it is a preventative measure.

When Luck wears it, it is a sign of previous injury.

Amazing.

Are you suggesting that some people are trying too hard?

lol....

[UndecidedFrog]

Are you suggesting that some people are trying too hard?

lol....

They try hard, but are unsuccessful, as easily proven.

[JoKeR]

Luck, and all QBs that have had Jim Harbaugh as their coach, wear a plant leg knee brace to prevent MCL tears.

See this link for a full discussion, along with excerpts from an interview about these knee braces with Harbaugh:

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/4485-andrew-lucks-knee-merge/

You have done your homework, where do find this stuff. I find it hilarious, yet sad, that some of our posters have more insight then some of these " NFL insiders "

[UndecidedFrog]

You have done your homework, where do find this stuff. I find it hilarious, yet sad, that some of our posters have more insight then some of these " NFL insiders "

TY. I like to research, and find evidence to support my opinions and conclusions.

I tend not to be emotional about decisions.

There are a few NFL insiders who post columns which I find are spot on, and then there are the rest.

One worthy columnist is Andrew Brandt. I encourage everyone to read him.

http://www.nationalf...ent-Part-1.html

http://www.nationalf...ent-Part-2.html

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Peyton-Predicament-Part-3-9076.html

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Peyton-Predicament-Part-4.html

[GoColts8818]

I erased the rest of this for a reason. You either missed my point or I didn't make it well enough, with the latter being most plausible.

The point isn't just the Manning trade, and I never said it'd made sense. It was that we don't know what it'd look like at the time. We're judging in hindsight and not in the there and then. This is why I compared it to the Vick situation as well, which you don't address. That was a good trade down.

The concept is flawed not because no one else in the first round would have added up to Peyton (and, by the way, the 'no Peyton' scenario would undoubtedly lead to different records, picks, probably schemes, etc.), but rather because this is not Peyton and the 1998 Draft. If we base every decision on what happened or might have happened at this time in the past, we end up applying those attributes to guys now who are not those guys. I never argued that Peyton wasn't a good pick, but rather that it's irrational to pretend that there was no scenario that could have ended up well. We're looking at one draft and basing it on what picks we'd make then (something we don't really now), while also ignoring the future. Who would they have taken in the 1999 Draft? 2000? 2001? Teams have won without Peyton Manning.

Don't get me wrong. I'm beyond happy we took Manning, but I think people are looking at the way the team was built around Manning and thinking a trade back and other players would have meant doom. There is no way of knowing.

Aside from that distraction, I think my larger point was that this is not that. You're looking at the 1998 as the best illustration, but who decides that? We're looking in hindsight and we don't know how this will look. What if we DID trade back and ended up like the Vick/Tomlinson trade? Would it still be the best illustration? The Chargers weren't right about every pick they got from that trade. They missed on Tay Cody and Reche Caldwell and traded away a consensus #1 pick. Was that a mistake? I disregard the notion that one scenario is better than the other, because both are plausible.

That's not to say that I don't take a side. I'm all for drafting Luck and against trading the pick. I just think it's illogical to selectively compare the pick to Peyton Manning and the 1998 Draft. He's not Peyton Manning and these guys aren't those guys. Is it possible they will be similar? Sure, but it's just as absurd as comparing it to Vick for Tomlinson, Caldwell, and Cody or Eli for Rivers, Merriman, and Kaeding. Why is the Manning pick, arguably the best QB in NFL history, most comparable to trading the Luck pick? It's an unrealistic comparison and one made arbitrarily to make one's own point. Any argument framing two situations as the same or similar and the possible outcome of a past event featuring a 'what if' with a present event that only exist on paper as of this moment does not take into context the vast dynamics that go into any given situation. We can play a million 'what if' games, though it's absurd to imagine that a majority of people will come to one common conclusion, or that it will be a right one.

I would honestly say the Falcons and Chargers came out about the same on that trade. LT had a very nice career in San Diego but never did better than an AFC Title game (which came with Rivers at QB not Brees). Vick on the other hand also lead the Falcons to the NFC Championship game. If you want to talk about quicker pay off from the trade you could argue it was the Falcons they won much faster and it took a few years for the Chargers to win and frankly it took till they were ready to give up on Brees on and go with Rivers before they were a NFL power house. You can argue that was a time a trade truly worked for both teams, it's not like one team came out that as a huge winner while someone else was a huge loser like when looking at the Cobwoys/Vikings trade for Walker for Example. Both teams found success coming out of that trade.

Like I said earlier in this post in a response to someone else sure Luck could turn out to be a bust and the Colts might very well nail every single pick if they traded it. The Celtics built a dynasty in basketball via a trade like that. So I am not going to say that couldn't work.

I was just merely looking at 1998 when we were in a similar situation we are now (not saying the exact same because it wasn't) we had an older team with an older QB who had recent playoff success coming off a down year which landed us the top pick in the draft. You could have easily made the case that the Colts should have retooled the team to make another run with Harbaugh/Faulk leading the way with Harrison probably still developing rather than going at the time with the unknown that was Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf. I am just simplying pointing out looking back on at it with hind sight it doesn't look like trading the pick would have worked too well.

I am mostly getting at the people who talk like trading the pick is a no brainer that it will work out. I don't think that's the case. Why are the picks that we would get from moving back have anyless risk of being a bust than Luck would be? Frankly they would have probably have more risk because they would be later pick. Also people keep saying we can use all these picks to restock the team for Manning. That works great if you get all those picks in this draft. Odds are we wont though. Frankly I think odds are we would come out of this with a net gain of one pick in this draft and that's probably an extra second round pick because we would be giving up our first for another team's first. Most of those other picks will probably come in future draft which will do more for a younger QB down the road than it will for Manning because this team is more than one or two peaces away from being a Super Bowl team even with Peyton.

Also if we don't take a QB now we are pretty much just punting the QB pick down the road. It's not like we are talking about a 26 or even a 30 year old Peyton Manning. We are talking about an older player who is coming off what is now believed to be four neck surgries and if you believe reports looking at fifth one. Sorry that's anything but a sure bet no matter how great Peyton is you would be foolish not to address the QB situation in some form. Odds are if we keep Manning we probably aren't going to be able to go get a great NFL back up not to mention I doubt a high end NFL back up would want to come here if Manning is the guy. Odds are we are looking at drafting one. If we are going to draft QB don't you want the best one on the board and rather than counting on a late round pick to be the back up? Most of those later round picks turn out more like Painter than they do Brady.

As to other points raised in this thread, I was not trying to compare Manning to Luck other than looking at them as being highly touted players out of college which both are. Also I am in no way trying to say Jim Harbaugh was nearly the QB that Peyton was. Frankly Harbaugh's best season barely holds up compared to Manning's worst season. I am merely saying the situations are similar (which they are) They aren't the exact same not even trying to say that.

Again I'll ask this question how would you feel had we traded the Manning pick to get more picks and we came out of the draft with one of the ends taken in the top five that were both busts (I think we would have gone end because of the top picks end was our biggest need that off-season when compared to running back, CB, and OT which we all had at the time.) with the combnation of Harbaugh and Holcomb at QB and had to spend the next 14 years watching Peyton Manning playing for someone else knowing we pretty much gave him away not becuase he forced a trade like Elway but because we wanted more picks? Do you think those more picks would have been worth it?

I personally don't. Like I said it's just something to think about when looking at this draft. It doesn't mean history is going to repeat it's self in terms of Manning and Luck on a talent level. It might it might not.

[DILLIGAFER]

LOL, when Peyton wears it, it is a preventative measure.

When Luck wears it, it is a sign of previous injury.

Amazing.

Please quote when people have said its only a preventative measure with Manning. Manning had issues with his bursa sack injury yes?

[UndecidedFrog]

Please quote when people have said its only a preventative measure with Manning. Manning had issues with his bursa sack injury yes?

Yep. That's often a proactive preventative measure.

There now. Feel better?

[GoColts8818]

Please quote when people have said its only a preventative measure with Manning. Manning had issues with his bursa sack injury yes?

He wore it before then. He's worn it his whole career and when asked about it he said he did it to help prevent knee injuries.

[ruksak]

There now. Feel better?

People say "lol" way too much. But seriously, I am laughing out loud.

[UndecidedFrog]

People say "lol" way too much. But seriously, I am laughing out loud.

He quoted my post #67, and if he just looked one post above to #66, he would have found your post, which I have since quoted per his request.

I do try to please. :wave:

[ruksak]

He quoted my post #67, and if he just looked one post above to #66, he would have found your post, which I have since quoted per his request.

I do try to please. :wave:

I think by "people", he meant someone besides that * ruksak.

[UndecidedFrog]

I think by "people", he meant someone besides that * ruksak.

I think you are reaching here. There is no indication that he does not think of you as a person. After all, you are closer to his position on this PM drama than I. Maybe that's why he asked me to dot my t's and cross my i's, by requesting that I quote my sources.

[ruksak]

I think you are reaching here. There is no indication that he does not think of you as a person. After all, you are closer to his position on this PM drama than I. Maybe that's why he asked me to dot my t's and cross my i's, by requesting that I quote my sources.

Wow. I'm in the bigtime now, aye? I'm a "source". I'd like to quote the great philosopher, Peter Griffin. "Frickin sweet".