So Here Is A What If For You

[UndecidedFrog]

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

Yeah, but you don't rate as high as some unnamed sources, or sources that are close to PM.

[number28]

When did i ever say that?

I want that but it doesn't look too likly at this point. There are many threads that will debate that with you if you want though, not the point of this thread.

I never said you said that.

I said that!!!

[ruksak]

Yeah, but you don't rate as high as some unnamed sources, or sources that are close to PM.

I shook Archie's hand once. Does that make me a family friend?

[Balzer40]

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?

I think you should educate yourself before trying to sound smart. I did not call you a name anywhere in my post. I said your statement was an oxym-o-r-o-n. I had to put the hyphens in the word because the stupid word filter changes the term even though there is nothing derogatory about it. Perhaps you should look up the word before you jump to conclusions and assume I called you a name.

[DILLIGAFER]

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:

'He' well, assuming im a guy wasnt your first mistake. Try reading and typing this from a flip phone. butt.u.me

[DILLIGAFER]

I think you should educate yourself before trying to sound smart. I did not call you a name anywhere in my post. I said your statement was an oxym-o-r-o-n. I had to put the hyphens in the word because the stupid word filter changes the term even though there is nothing derogatory about it. Perhaps you should look up the word before you jump to conclusions and assume I called you a name.

Oh bull. Go feed your b.s. to the fish because im not bitting. You know as well as everyone else thats what you did. Im not buying it. I read your posts and your generally rude. What a load.

[HGRekks]

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.

I can quite honestly say I don't know, because it's not a one player league. Yeah, Peyton Manning likely would have been dominating somewhere else. Ok. But what team would have been built in it's place? It's pure speculation based on absolutely nothing. Again, this is all just positing the hypothetical that proves your point happens. You think they'd take Wistrom or Wadsworth. Why? Because DE was a need. I think they'd have taken the best player on the board. Why? Because that's the way Polian usually rolled. Did Polian have Wistrom up there? I don't know. He could have had Moss, Woodson, or anyone up there. I'm not going to choose someone to prove a point, because it's entirely self-serving. Is it possible the team would have been in the crapper? Absolutely. Is it possible a more well rounded team would have came in its place and done well? Sure. We don't really know, but it's silly to pretend that because the last era was built on Manning that no success could have come without him. Using a completely made up reality to justify a current situation is absurd.

And as I said, the Colts did not have corners. They had 2 former Polian 1st round bust starting in Poole and Burris, neither of whom were here the year before. They were mediocre at best.

The Vick/Tomlinson case is just as subjective as the trading thing, though far less speculation. I don't think the trade paid off for both teams nearly as well as you seem to. One team got a Hall of Fame running back who is arguably the greatest of his time and the other got a guy who never topped 60% completion, brought the team to the playoffs only twice and then went to prison. Would I take 5 years of a decent QB who took the team to the NFC Championship game once (because apparently using how far the team has been is a solid measurement of a single player, especially cross-positional) over a Hall of Fame back and 5 playoff appearances in 9 years? We have different views, but I don't think it's even close to an even trade.

[HGRekks]

To be sure, I think there are actual merits to argue against making this trade. Tying it to an imaginary reality is not one of those.

[GoColts8818]

I can quite honestly say I don't know, because it's not a one player league. Yeah, Peyton Manning likely would have been dominating somewhere else. Ok. But what team would have been built in it's place? It's pure speculation based on absolutely nothing. Again, this is all just positing the hypothetical that proves your point happens. You think they'd take Wistrom or Wadsworth. Why? Because DE was a need. I think they'd have taken the best player on the board. Why? Because that's the way Polian usually rolled. Did Polian have Wistrom up there? I don't know. He could have had Moss, Woodson, or anyone up there. I'm not going to choose someone to prove a point, because it's entirely self-serving. Is it possible the team would have been in the crapper? Absolutely. Is it possible a more well rounded team would have came in its place and done well? Sure. We don't really know, but it's silly to pretend that because the last era was built on Manning that no success could have come without him. Using a completely made up reality to justify a current situation is absurd.

The Vick/Tomlinson case is just as subjective as the trading thing, though far less speculation. I don't think the trade paid off for both teams nearly as well as you seem to. One team got a Hall of Fame running back who is arguably the greatest of his time and the other got a guy who never topped 60% completion, brought the team to the playoffs only twice and then went to prison. Would I take 5 years of a decent QB who took the team to the NFC Championship game once (because apparently using how far the team has been is a solid measurement of a single player, especially cross-positional) over a Hall of Fame back and 5 playoff appearances in 9 years? We have different views, but I don't think it's even close to an even trade.

Wadsworth fits that as well. He was the third player taken in the draft which was the Chargers pick to start with. Odds are they would have traded up with us because they wanted one of the two QBs. So if we moved back to number three assuming the two QBs still went one two Wadsworth was the next best player on the board and he still fit a need. It's not a reach to say if we traded back that Wadsworth would have very well been the pick. Polian also took the best player on the board that fit a need. For Example the year we took Hughes the best player on the board was one of the two QBs in free fall but they didn't fit a need in the Colts eyes. Also given the Colts history of avoiding players with issues do you really think they would have taken a flyer on Moss who had issues coming out of college which is why he slide to number 21? It's much more likely that Wadsworth or Winstrom would have been the pick than Moss would have been. Woodson could have been the pick as well but it took him a while to come around. He really struggled with the Raiders and was on his way out of the league till the Packers took a chance on him did he struggle early because he was Raiders? Maybe or it could be it just took him a while to come around as well and that might not have changed had he came here. Just about everyone else who went in the top ten that year though was an OT or RB. The Colts would not have picked one of those players. It could have been Greg Ellis but at the time the Colts were pretty strong at OLB so I doubt he would have been the guy either.

I didn't say it wasn't possiable that a more rounded team wouldn't have been in place. In fact I've said both could have happened. I am just asking how would you have felt if you had to watch Peyton Manning playing some place knowing we pretty much gave him up because we wanted more picks? Like I said personally I wouldn't have enjoyed it. Like I said it's just something to chew on as we get towards the draft mostly for those who talk about trading the pick like it's can't possiable go wrong. Frankly the odds that we just nail every single one of those picks is much lower than than the chance that Luck is a bust.

As to the Falcons/Chargers trip it's important to remember that part of the reason the Chargers made that trade is because they knew they could get Brees. How many times did Brees and LT lead the Chargers to the playoffs? Once I believe. It was when the Chargers gave up on Brees and got Rivers that they turned into power house thanks in part to the Eli trade. While LT was a big part of those teams it's not like that trade set those teams up. It was another trade years later that set those teams up after the Chargers did some rebuilding. The Falcons on the other hand had success right out of the gate with Vick and then were not able to keep that success going. You can make a case that if we are just looking at that trade and the success right away the Falcons got the better end of that trade. Frankly like I said to me I think both teams were helped from that trade. Both teams had good things come out of that trade. Like I said it's a tme where a trade worked for both teams. It's not like Cowboys trade with the Vikings where the Cowboys clearly robbed the Vikings blind. That or the Ricky Williams trade are the probably the best examples of a time where a team trading a player for picks won.

[GoColts8818]

To be sure, I think there are actual merits to argue against making this trade. Tying it to an imaginary reality is not one of those.

Judging by the number of people who like my first post I think most people got my point if you don't agree with it fine no one says you have too.

[HGRekks]

Judging by the number of people who like my first post I think most people got my point if you don't agree with it fine no one says you have too.

I'm not sure why you're so concerned that I don't agree then. I have no concern for what other people think, and I don't understand why you think it's some point of pride.

The point I'm making before I allowed myself to get sidetracked is that this is not that pick. It has nothing to do with it, so the framing is an exercise in setting up a strawman that you can beat down. You're beating up on people who want to trade by placing Manning in Luck's place and Wistrom or Wadsworth on whoever the Colts would hypothetically take in that place. Can you not see how relating the two is utterly baseless? The two situations have no bearing on each other. It's just easier to pull at the heart strings (so to speak) of Colts fans using an icon of football and the Colts as your hypothetical Luck. Of course they'll like what you're saying, no one wants to imagine a team without Manning. This is not Manning, so your basis is off.

Also, why is immediate return the criteria? So the Falcons didn't get >>>ed because at least they got immediate return, even though the Chargers had far more prolonged and successful return?

[GoColts8818]

I'm not sure why you're so concerned that I don't agree then. I have no concern for what other people think, and I don't understand why you think it's some point of pride.

The point I'm making before I allowed myself to get sidetracked is that this is not that pick. It has nothing to do with it, so the framing is an exercise in setting up a strawman that you can beat down. You're beating up on people who want to trade by placing Manning in Luck's place and Wistrom or Wadsworth on whoever the Colts would hypothetically take in that place. Can you not see how relating the two is utterly baseless? The two situations have no bearing on each other. It's just easier to pull at the heart strings (so to speak) of Colts fans using an icon of football and the Colts as your hypothetical Luck. Of course they'll like what you're saying, no one wants to imagine a team without Manning. This is not Manning, so your basis is off.

Also, why is immediate return the criteria? So the Falcons didn't get >>>ed because at least they got immediate return, even though the Chargers had far more prolonged and successful return?

I am not beating up on people at all. The only thing I have done is tried to keep it on track a little bit when people tried to take it off track in terms of trying to make it into a Luck vs Manning debate or pointing out to people that I am not saying Harbaugh was as good as Manning is or saying this isn't talking about Manning vs Leaf either. I've also admited that just because this worked with Manning doesn't mean it'll work with Luck and that clearly Luck could be a bust. Generally speaking it's not beating up on people if you the oppiste of your idea could be right as well. Defending my opinion on things is not beating people up either. People are free to think what they think and I am alloud to disagree with them too. It's not just one way where only they are aloud to disagree with me. I just presented another way to think about this useing something we can go back and look at little bit, what the difference between doing this or playing the what if game in terms of what might happen if the future if we trade the pick? Both are what if games. Again if you don't like it you don't have too.

Just to be clear in no way is my thread ment to be a stand alone case to say we can't trade the Luck pick because we didn't trade the Manning pick and that worked out. It's just ment to be something to give something for those who talk about trading the pick like it can't go wrong at all and we need to do it because of the risk that Luck could be a bust to think about. I am looking back a time when the franchise was in a similar situation (not the exact same just similar) and saying hey what would have happened if we had traded that pick for the same arguement people are using now to say we should trade the pick. Personally I don't think it would have worked out well. That is just my opinion in a what if thread. A lot of other people seemed to get the point I was making if you don't or you don't agree with that's fine again you don't have to.

Again if you don't like me using this what if topic you don't have to and you don't have to post in this thread, there are plunty of threads on this forum you can talk in. However just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have a right to call it utterly baseless and pretty much say I can't talk about it. If you want to talk about that's fine you are more than welcome to and you are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion you can do so without saying my opinion is utterly baseless. I do happen to think you can look at the situations and say hey they are similar because it is an older team with an older QB that has to pick between reubilding around with a rookie QB that happens to hold the top pick in the draft or trading that pick and trying to retool a team that was in the playoffs just a couple of years before this and try to take make one last run. Again if you disagree with that you are more than welcome too. If anything I feel like you are beating up on me because you don't like my opinion on this.

I don't think the Chargers had a prolonged successful return only because of that trade. It was the Rivers/Eli trade that had more to do with that than the LT trade did. Like I said LT was a big part of those teams too but it's not like the LT trade set up all that success all by it's self like the Cowboys/Vikings trade for example. Most of it came from the Rivers trade when they had the fourth pick in the draft and were rebuilding a bit because that build didn't work too well. The Falcons also had success from that trade so it's really had to argue that it didn't work on some level for both teams.

[HGRekks]

I am not beating up on people at all. The only thing I have done is tried to keep it on track a little bit when people tried to take it off track in terms of trying to make it into a Luck vs Manning debate or pointing out to people that I am not saying Harbaugh was as good as Manning is or saying this isn't talking about Manning vs Leaf either. I've also admited that just because this worked with Manning doesn't mean it'll work with Luck and that clearly Luck could be a bust. Generally speaking it's not beating up on people if you the oppiste of your idea could be right as well. Defending my opinion on things is not beating people up either. People are free to think what they think and I am alloud to disagree with them too. It's not just one way where only they are aloud to disagree with me. I just presented another way to think about this useing something we can go back and look at little bit, what the difference between doing this or playing the what if game in terms of what might happen if the future if we trade the pick? Both are what if games. Again if you don't like it you don't have too.

Just to be clear in no way is my thread ment to be a stand alone case to say we can't trade the Luck pick because we didn't trade the Manning pick and that worked out. It's just ment to be something to give something for those who talk about trading the pick like it can't go wrong at all and we need to do it because of the risk that Luck could be a bust to think about. I am looking back a time when the franchise was in a similar situation (not the exact same just similar) and saying hey what would have happened if we had traded that pick for the same arguement people are using now to say we should trade the pick. Personally I don't think it would have worked out well. That is just my opinion in a what if thread. A lot of other people seemed to get the point I was making if you don't or you don't agree with that's fine again you don't have to.

Again if you don't like me using this what if topic you don't have to and you don't have to post in this thread, there are plunty of threads on this forum you can talk in. However just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have a right to call it utterly baseless and pretty much say I can't talk about it. If you want to talk about that's fine you are more than welcome to and you are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion you can do so without saying my opinion is utterly baseless. I do happen to think you can look at the situations and say hey they are similar because it is an older team with an older QB that has to pick between reubilding around with a rookie QB that happens to hold the top pick in the draft or trading that pick and trying to retool a team that was in the playoffs just a couple of years before this and try to take make one last run. Again if you disagree with that you are more than welcome too. If anything I feel like you are beating up on me because you don't like my opinion on this.

I don't think the Chargers had a prolonged successful return only because of that trade. It was the Rivers/Eli trade that had more to do with that than the LT trade did. Like I said LT was a big part of those teams too but it's not like the LT trade set up all that success all by it's self like the Cowboys/Vikings trade for example. Most of it came from the Rivers trade when they had the fourth pick in the draft and were rebuilding a bit because that build didn't work too well. The Falcons also had success from that trade so it's really had to argue that it didn't work on some level for both teams.

Never said anything in bold, at least not in the context that you seem to think. Again, if some confusion arose, I'll take that blame. I'm sure this arises from the unclarity after the strawman point, in which I did drop the 'people's view' and left it with 'people'. I apologize if that was misunderstood.

You're beating up on a view point unrelated to what people actually think by positing that trading the Manning pick is somehow relevant. Yeah, it's a fun thought experiment, but it's baseless because the people in question aren't the same, the value of the pick is not the same, the focus of the league is not the same, the team is not the same, etc. The only thing that is similar is a certain set of conditions: older QB, consensus #1 pick. Again, what connection is there to a trade probably not working out then to working out now? If you're saying that it's showing that those trades don't always work out, congratulations, it doesn't strengthen your side. Pointing to an exceptional pick like Manning is weak and I said baseless because we both know he's now a Hall of Famer and the epitome of an uncommon pick. It's so uncommon to the point that it should be considered the exception to most anything.

I have no clue where you get the idea that this is anything personal because I disagree with your basis. You might not like it, but I am allowed to have my opinion too, and that includes calling comparing a hypothetical hindsight to a hypothetical future baseless. I've never said anything about you personally and only about your argument.

[GoColts8818]

Never said anything in bold, at least not in the context that you seem to think. Again, if some confusion arose, I'll take that blame.

You're beating up on a view point unrelated to what people actually think by positing that trading the Manning pick is somehow relevant. Yeah, it's a fun thought experiment, but it's baseless because the people in question aren't the same, the value of the pick is not the same, the focus of the league is not the same, the team is not the same, etc. The only thing that is similar is a certain set of conditions: older QB, consensus #1 pick. Again, what connection is there to a trade probably not working out then to working out now? If you're saying that it's showing that those trades don't always work out, congratulations, it doesn't strengthen your side. Pointing to an exceptional pick like Manning is weak and I said baseless because we both know he's now a Hall of Famer and the epitome of an uncommon pick. It's so uncommon to the point that it should be considered the exception to most anything.

I have no clue where you get the idea that this is anything personal because I disagree with your basis. You might not like it, but I am allowed to have my opinion too, and that includes calling comparing a hypothetical hindsight to a hypothetical future baseless. I've never said anything about you personally and only about your argument.

Time to agree to disagree, it's clear you don't agree with my view point which is fine.

I am not beating up on anyone's view point. Just because I disagree with it does not mean I am beating up on something. I've said that people who hold that opinion might turn out to be right. I just presented another way to look at things. You've made your point you don't agree with it which is fine. That does NOT mean I am beating up on the other view point though.

All I have ever said is the set of conditions are similar. If we are going to play a what if game (which several people have done in regards to the top overall pic) I think ti's fair to go back and look at time when the conditions were similar. Again judging by the number of people who liked my first post several people got my point and agreed with so no I don't think it's utterly baseless as you called it and yes saying my opinion on something is utterly baseless is personal atleast to me.

Like I said it is now time to agree to disagree.

[pacolts56]

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.

There's no question that every trade down situation is different, as I pointed out..... and the benefit of hindsight always carries skewed analysis versus the here and now.

But a comparison of hypothetical trade down scenarios involving two very highly touted, cerebral QBs with top intangibles like Manning and Luck offers enough parallels to kick the topic around.

Projecting the 1998 situation onto this coming draft is pure speculation, but again, the situation does have its similarities.

Either way..... speculation and hindsight are part of the fun and I don't think the OP was drawing any absolutes for this coming draft, but rightly pointed out the disappointment that probably would have resulted in a 1998 trade down.

[GoColts8818]

There's no question that every trade down situation is different, as I pointed out..... and the benefit of hindsight always carries skewed analysis versus the here and now.

But a comparison of hypothetical trade down scenarios involving two very highly touted, cerebral QBs with top intangibles like Manning and Luck offers enough parallels to kick the topic around.

Projecting the 1998 situation onto this coming draft is pure speculation, but again, the situation does have its similarities.

Either way..... speculation and hindsight are part of the fun and I don't think the OP was drawing any absolutes for this coming draft, but rightly pointed out the disappointment that probably would have resulted in a 1998 trade down.

Exactly...if anyone who thought was I was trying to say because I thought trading down in 1998 looks like it would have been a mistake means that trading down now must be a mistake as well is mistaken. That is not what I am trying to say at all.

In an off-season that has been full of what if questions I just thought of a new and different one than the spin of the same old what if questions of what if we drafted Leaf rather than Manning and what if we trade this year's pick. I was just honestly thinking about both one night and thought hmm I wonder what would have happened if we had traded the pick in 1998 and tried to build around Harbaugh and did some reaserch to see that at least the results right away didn't look to good and looked up the 2002 draft because that was the year I projected we would have gotten a QB because Harbaugh played for four more years. I think we would have used Holcomb to bridge the gap from Harbaugh to the new rookie and it just didn't look good to me. Clearly it's a game of coulda, woulda, shoulda (well probably not shoulda but you get he idea at least I hope people do) and just thought I would toss it out there for food for thought for the people who make it seem like there is no way trading the pick this year could go wrong.

I am not niave enough to think I am going to change people's minds because of this thread and that was never my goal. That's why I tried to be as clear as I thought could by saying here is a what if for you. Who knows maybe I am 100% wrong and if we traded the 98 pick maybe we take Charles Woodson and rather than taking Edge the following year we take Champ Baily or Chris McAlister and build one of the greatest secondaries ever and follow that up with getting Booger or Kerse with a second first round pick to sure up our front line and we become a defensive team with Marshal Faulk being the star on offense with a Marvin Harrison who is starting to come out of his shell and maybe with that kinda talent around him Harbaugh does have more years like he did in 95 and 96 and we go to Super Bowls that way and maybe poor managment by the Chargers ruins Peyton Manning's career and a team like the Eagles moves up and gets Leaf and they develop him right and Leaf is the super star now. Some how I doubt all that though. I just happen to think we would have been kicking ourselves for passing on Manning and it would put us on a really bad road for the future.

[GoColts8818]

DEVILS ADVOCATE REPORT

History shows vast majority of QB's picked # 1 dont become franchise QB's

NOTE : a FanPost on but not by

stampede blue, its from a site member there , just like one of us, THERE CHART IS BETTER IN ARTICLE

Is an article to go along with stats

See below:

Year

--------------- Player

------------------------------------------------------- Franchise QB

1970

---------------- Bradshaw

----------------------------------------------------------- YES

1971

-------------- Jim Pluckett, cut by 49rs before winning at Raiders

-------------------------------------------------------------------- NO

1975

------------ Steve Bartkowski

---------------------------------------------------------------NO

1983

--------------------------John Elway

-----------------------------------------------------------------YES

1987

-----------------------VInny Testaverde

-------------------------------------------------------------------NO

1989

-----------------------Troy Aikman

------------------------------------------------------------------YES

1990

-------------------------Jeff George

-------------------------------------------------------------NO – Bust

1993

-----------------------Drew Bledsoe

--------------------------------------------------------------------NO

1998

----------------------Peyton Manning

------------------------------------------------------------------YES

1999

-----------------------------Tim Couch

------------------------------------------------------------------NO – Bust

2001

----------------------------Michael Vick

-----------------------------------------------------------------------NO

2002

--------------------------David Carr

------------------------------------------------------------------NO – Bust

2003

-----------------------Carson Palmer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------NO

2004

----------------------------Eli Manning

-----------------------------------------------------------------------YES

2005

------------------------------Alex Smith

--------------------------------------------------------------------------NO

2007

----------------------JaMarcus Russell

-------------------------------------------------------------------NO – BUST

2009

-----------------------Matthew Stafford

-------------------------------------------------------------------N/A , too new

2010

------------------------ Sam Bradford

------------------------------------------------------------------N/A , too new

2011

-----------------------Cam Newton

-----------------------------------------------------------------N/A , too new

So, of the 19 QBs taken first overall, a grand total of 5 have become Franchise QB’s (Bradshaw, Elway, Aikman, Peyton and Eli)

( I dont neseasrily agree with all these, some not QBs fault , Palmer started stellar , then Bengal legal issues and injury )

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2012/2/16/2802271/stats-history-prove-i...

I think this speaks more to the fact franchise QBs are viewed as something you have to have now in the NFL that they become more valued as a top overall pick because in most peoples minds now if you don't have a franchise QB you don't have a shot in the NFL.

I am not sure if all those players were honestly viewed as the best player in that draft and some of them were viewed as we need a QB so we have to take one.

I think there is a difference between a guy like Elway, or Peyton and Luck who were all viewed as the best players in their draft and a guy like Carr who went number overall because the Texans wanted a franchise QB to build around when a guy like Peppers was probably the best player in that draft. I remember on that draft day ESPN saying something like that because they were making a joke how the Panthers didn't get the top pick despite having the worst record the year before because the Texans were a new expansion team and either Mort or Kiper saying "well it all worked out in the end because the Panthers stil got the best overall player in this draft."

Also I would disagree with the view points on some of those QBs not being viewed as franchise QBs. Palmer lead the Bengals to the playoffs twice when they had not been there since either the late 80's or early 90's. He just got tired of the bad managment there and then went to another team with bad managment.

Also Bledsoe was a very good QB who won a lot with the Pats till he got hurt including taking them to a Super Bowl. You don't have to be a HOF QB to be thought of as a franchise QB. I do think we are going to add Stafford to this list. He had a great season with the Lions and it looks like the only thing that might stand in his way are injury issues. I would agree it's too soon to tell on Bradford and Newton.

[bayone]

I think this speaks more to the fact franchise QBs are viewed as something you have to have now in the NFL that they become more valued as a top overall pick because in most peoples minds now if you don't have a franchise QB you don't have a shot in the NFL.

I am not sure if all those players were honestly viewed as the best player in that draft and some of them were viewed as we need a QB so we have to take one.

I think there is a difference between a guy like Elway, or Peyton and Luck who were all viewed as the best players in their draft and a guy like Carr who went number overall because the Texans wanted a franchise QB to build around when a guy like Peppers was probably the best player in that draft. I remember on that draft day ESPN saying something like that because they were making a joke how the Panthers didn't get the top pick despite having the worst record the year before because the Texans were a new expansion team and either Mort or Kiper saying "well it all worked out in the end because the Panthers stil got the best overall player in this draft."

Also I would disagree with the view points on some of those QBs not being viewed as franchise QBs. Palmer lead the Bengals to the playoffs twice when they had not been there since either the late 80's or early 90's. He just got tired of the bad managment there and then went to another team with bad managment.

Also Bledsoe was a very good QB who won a lot with the Pats till he got hurt including taking them to a Super Bowl. You don't have to be a HOF QB to be thought of as a franchise QB. I do think we are going to add Stafford to this list. He had a great season with the Lions and it looks like the only thing that might stand in his way are injury issues. I would agree it's too soon to tell on Bradford and Newton.

Agree its a QB led league and many picked 1st due to that & not that they were best in draft

I did note that as u say on Palmer & bledsoe

( I dont neseasrily agree with all these, some not QBs fault ,

Palmer started stellar , then Bengal legal issues and injury )

also agree in particular when u discuss

Also Bledsoe was a very good QB who won a lot with the Pats till he got hurt including taking them to a Super Bowl. You don't have to be a HOF QB to be thought of as a franchise QB. I do think we are going to add Stafford to this list. He had a great season with the Lions and it looks like the only thing that might stand in his way are injury issues.

as I am

Living in Lion country Stafford is worshiped here, or should I say the combo of him and his mega-tron receiver are and he has made some great throws and even when hurt

[Balzer40]

Oh bull. Go feed your b.s. to the fish because im not bitting. You know as well as everyone else thats what you did. Im not buying it. I read your posts and your generally rude. What a load.

Did you even look up the word? I doubt it considering your response. It seems that you are a little immature and sensitive. You say im rude but your normal response to people that don't swoon over Manning is typically rude too. Oh well, im not missing much by skipping through your posts considering they all consist of the same thing.

[bayone]

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.nationalf...art-3-9076.html

http://www.nationalf...ent-Part-4.html

I had seen parts 1 & 2, never new were a 3 & 4, Thanks

[HGRekks]

But a comparison of hypothetical trade down scenarios involving two very highly touted, cerebral QBs with top intangibles like Manning and Luck offers enough parallels to kick the topic around.

But it doesn't at all. Even if I grant that premise, it would also require drawing parallels to the rest of that round and the possible picks as well. Does Coples compare to Wadsworth? Wistrom? Would Coples even be the pick? Claiborne to Woodson? Would Claiborne even be the pick? Would they even be able to trade to roughly the same positions as this posed hypothetical? Wouldn't that be an extra hypothetical? The comparison of one to one, even if accurate (which I disagree it is) has no bearing on the fact that we're talking about several different combinations that could have occurred both then and now. The argument about trading the Peyton pick, once again, might have a basis if you think Luck is comparable enough, but once you posit that these others guys would have been selected, you leave the realm of reasonable comparison.

You can't draw a line between two players in a hypothetical drawing on more than just those two players and say the situation is similar enough to draw comparisons. And like I said, comparing a guy who became the greatest of all time to anyone creates an entirely unfair and unrealistic premise. The bottom line is that the argument that trading Manning for Wistrom and perhaps Faneca makes no sense when we've only posited that Manning might equal Luck but who knows who the rest would be. So, yeah, Wistrom and Faneca wouldn't have been great (I honestly don't know such a thing to be true, but I can see that angle), but how does that tie to player X and Y whom (once again, hypothetically) would be taken in their spot? Are you saying the Colts are likely to get players of their caliber in a trade this time around? Because at that point it's a simple game of stacking the deck in your own favor, which is entirely unreasonable. We're using hindsight to not only justify the future, but also to imply that the Colts would have taken either one of two bust (stacking the deck without knowing the board the GM would have had) or perhaps two Pro Bowlers, though we then ignore that this is a team sport and future drafts and picks would play into it. Yeah, if we cut off right there, it's horrible. If a hypothetical team was assembled around those players, who knows. Cutting it off right there, and having a biased opinion holder set the perimeters is entirely unrealistic. And I don't see how comparing the career of perhaps the greatest of all time after the fact is even reasonable to compare to an (admittedly very good) prospect.

So yeah, I reject the idea that because A might equal B, we should suppose W and X will also equal Y and Z.

[dgambill]

A lot of what ifs and speculation. It is very hard to pass up the first pick but nothing says that if we didn't trade it we wouldn't get plenty in return. This is speculation as well but let me put this deal out there. It is a reasonable trade I think for both. Cleveland moves the 4th and 22 pick this year and next years #1. That would possibly land us Kalil/Blackmon at 4 and then at #22 would likely give us the choice of these people depending what we got at #4... OT Mike Adams, S Mark Baron, NT Dontari Poe, DT Devon Still, G Cordy Glenn, WR Alshon Jeffrey or WR Kendall Wright. That would leave us the 34th pick still and someone like Tannenhill at QB in round two who might could learn more qb since he played a lot of wr in college. Or use Clevelands and ours next year to pick a qb like say Barkley or Jones or who knows the next RG3. I certainly don't see Cleveland if they added Luck making the playoffs in the same division as Pitt, Bal, and a vastly improved Cincy who is WAAAY under the cap and has multiple 1st rd picks. Probably would be around 10 I would think. Certainly close enough to trade up or take the best qb available at that position. I would like to take Luck 1st but certainly the option I have laid out is certainly intriguing if you don't think Luck's upside is so much greater than say a solid Landry Jones/Ryan Tannenhill who could still have a solid career. We have seen players at #1 bust and also players that didn't like how Dalton had a good season this year and those like Brady go late and be one of the best. Very intriguing.

[pacolts56]

But it doesn't at all. Even if I grant that premise, it would also require drawing parallels to the rest of that round and the possible picks as well. Does Coples compare to Wadsworth? Wistrom? Would Coples even be the pick? Claiborne to Woodson? Would Claiborne even be the pick? Would they even be able to trade to roughly the same positions as this posed hypothetical? Wouldn't that be an extra hypothetical? The comparison of one to one, even if accurate (which I disagree it is) has no bearing on the fact that we're talking about several different combinations that could have occurred both then and now. The argument about trading the Peyton pick, once again, might have a basis if you think Luck is comparable enough, but once you posit that these others guys would have been selected, you leave the realm of reasonable comparison.

You can't draw a line between two players in a hypothetical drawing on more than just those two players and say the situation is similar enough to draw comparisons. And like I said, comparing a guy who became the greatest of all time to anyone creates an entirely unfair and unrealistic premise. The bottom line is that the argument that trading Manning for Wistrom and perhaps Faneca makes no sense when we've only posited that Manning might equal Luck but who knows who the rest would be. So, yeah, Wistrom and Faneca wouldn't have been great (I honestly don't know such a thing to be true, but I can see that angle), but how does that tie to player X and Y whom (once again, hypothetically) would be taken in their spot? Are you saying the Colts are likely to get players of their caliber in a trade this time around? Because at that point it's a simple game of stacking the deck in your own favor, which is entirely unreasonable. We're using hindsight to not only justify the future, but also to imply that the Colts would have taken either one of two bust (stacking the deck without knowing the board the GM would have had) or perhaps two Pro Bowlers, though we then ignore that this is a team sport and future drafts and picks would play into it. Yeah, if we cut off right there, it's horrible. If a hypothetical team was assembled around those players, who knows. Cutting it off right there, and having a biased opinion holder set the perimeters is entirely unrealistic. And I don't see how comparing the career of perhaps the greatest of all time after the fact is even reasonable to compare to an (admittedly very good) prospect.

So yeah, I reject the idea that because A might equal B, we should suppose W and X will also equal Y and Z.

No one is saying anything absolute Rex..... just tryin' to have a little fun.

Whew!

[HGRekks]

No one is saying anything absolute Rex..... just tryin' to have a little fun.

Whew!

I never claimed they were. I'm not sure what this post is supposed to mean.

[pacolts56]

I never claimed they were. I'm not sure what this post is supposed to mean.

Just that the topic is probably stretched as far as it can go.

It's all good.... and its pretty clear it'll be Luck or Manning and Luck going forward anyway.