Chrisaaron1023

Mock Draft Browns snag Andrew Luck in trade, Colts own three top-5 picks

Recommended Posts

-I wouldn't do it. How quickly we forget how Very Good to Great Luck was from 2012-2014. We went from 2-14 to 11-5 and the main reason why was because of him. We also went to the Title Game with him and had a mediocre Defense at best and really no run game. If healthy I think Luck can still end up being a Top 10 QB of all-time because he has the clutch factor and football IQ to do so. I guess some people think he's damaged goods, I don't. Patience people.

 

-Lets say we did do this, we better take Barkley 1st and our QB 3rd because the Giants could screw everything up and take Barkley 2nd. If we start over I don't want Darnold or Rosen without the help of Barkley because neither is a healthy Andrew Luck. Then take Chubb 4th obviously. I think between Rosen and Darnold it's a toss up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

-I wouldn't do it. How quickly we forget how Very Good to Great Luck was from 2012-2014. We went from 2-14 to 11-5 and the main reason why was because of him. We also went to the Title Game with him and had a mediocre Defense at best and really no run game. If healthy I think Luck can still end up being a Top 10 QB of all-time because he has the clutch factor and football IQ to do so. I guess some people think he's damaged goods, I don't. Patience people.

 

-Lets say we did do this, we better take Barkley 1st and our QB 3rd because the Giants could screw everything up and take Barkley 2nd. If we start over I don't want Darnold or Rosen without the help of Barkley because neither is a healthy Andrew Luck. Then take Chubb 4th obviously. I think between Rosen and Darnold it's a toss up.

I have to disagree about Luck being damaged goods at this point. He's very close to being finished IMO. In fact, we don't even know 100% if he's coming back yet. Even if he does, I don't think his body will hold up for more than a few years, especially if we don't fix the O-Line immediately. This trade would be a dream IMO. Throw him on the Browns, get three top 4 picks in the draft and have a true rebuild with a good GM and coach. We'd also have three 2nd rounders in this scenario that could get elite talent that falls out of the 1st. Worst case scenario, the QB we draft fails, we still have Brissett. With that many picks, our overall team would have a ton of playmakers. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I have to disagree about Luck being damaged goods at this point. He's very close to being finished IMO. In fact, we don't even know 100% if he's coming back yet. Even if he does, I don't think his body will hold up for more than a few years, especially if we don't fix the O-Line immediately. This trade would be a dream IMO. Throw him on the Browns, get three top 4 picks in the draft and have a true rebuild with a good GM and coach. We'd also have three 2nd rounders in this scenario that could get elite talent that falls out of the 1st. Worst case scenario, the QB we draft fails, we still have Brissett. With that many picks, our overall team would have a ton of playmakers. 

 

This hypothetical trade is not only a immediate rebuild with multiple stars BUT also "insurance" incase Luck's career is shortened or even if done with the colts.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a purely hypothetical perspective, this would be a difficult trade to turn down if you're Chris Ballard. However, the reality is that if Luck's 100% healthy, Irsay, in my opinion, will not allow him to be traded. And the flipside of that is if he's truly "damaged goods," Dorsey will know that, and won't trade anything for him, let alone 2 top 5 draft picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're that dumb to do that trade I'd take them up on the offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I have to disagree about Luck being damaged goods at this point. He's very close to being finished IMO. In fact, we don't even know 100% if he's coming back yet. Even if he does, I don't think his body will hold up for more than a few years, especially if we don't fix the O-Line immediately. This trade would be a dream IMO. Throw him on the Browns, get three top 4 picks in the draft and have a true rebuild with a good GM and coach. We'd also have three 2nd rounders in this scenario that could get elite talent that falls out of the 1st. Worst case scenario, the QB we draft fails, we still have Brissett. With that many picks, our overall team would have a ton of playmakers. 

"He's very close to being finished" Wow that's a bold statement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

"He's very close to being finished" Wow that's a bold statement.

 

With no basis in fact.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why everyone continues to be so enamored with the idea of trading Andrew Luck.

 

First, if he's healthy, the Browns win this trade going away. Everyone's in love with high draft picks, but draft picks don't win games. Healthy Luck is capable of carrying bad teams to double digit win seasons. 

 

Second, if he's not healthy, you don't get this kind of offer. And there's no way to prove his status before the draft.

 

Because of this, Luck is probably the least tradeable player in the league right now. It would be impossible to agree to a deal that would make sense to both sides.

 

Lastly, I think some Colts fans think it's easy to replace a franchise QB. Forget about Luck being great, one of the best QBs in the league. Just finding a really good starter like Alex Smith is something some teams have struggled to do for decades. The Dolphins had to lure Jay Cutler out of retirement last year. The Vikings or Broncos are probably about to give Kirk Cousins over $30m/year. Good QBs don't grow on trees.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

This hypothetical trade is not only a immediate rebuild with multiple stars BUT also "insurance" incase Luck's career is shortened or even if done with the colts.

 

Draft choices are not always stars.  Andrew Luck is better than anyone in the draft at any position

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't understand why everyone continues to be so enamored with the idea of trading Andrew Luck.

 

First, if he's healthy, the Browns win this trade going away. Everyone's in love with high draft picks, but draft picks don't win games. Healthy Luck is capable of carrying bad teams to double digit win seasons. 

 

Second, if he's not healthy, you don't get this kind of offer. And there's no way to prove his status before the draft.

 

Because of this, Luck is probably the least tradeable player in the league right now. It would be impossible to agree to a deal that would make sense to both sides.

 

Lastly, I think some Colts fans think it's easy to replace a franchise QB. Forget about Luck being great, one of the best QBs in the league. Just finding a really good starter like Alex Smith is something some teams have struggled to do for decades. The Dolphins had to lure Jay Cutler out of retirement last year. The Vikings or Broncos are probably about to give Kirk Cousins over $30m/year. Good QBs don't grow on trees.

This would be a rare deal that makes very little sense for either side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Draft choices are not always stars.  Andrew Luck is better than anyone in the draft at any position

 

 

 

Thats why I would demand their 1, 4, 33rd, 35th, and Myles Garrett. Maybe even add in their 2019 1st. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BProland85 said:

 

Thats why I would demand their 1, 4, 33rd, 35th, and Myles Garrett. 

 

And you still don't have a QB.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

Thats why I would demand their 1, 4, 33rd, 35th, and Myles Garrett. Maybe even add in their 2019 1st. 

..and both teams would go 5-11 next season...  Its a lose-lose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

And you still don't have a QB.

 

I fully trust that Ballard would surround Brissett with all that he needs to be successful. And with Frank Reich on board, I would think he would know good QB prospects. And this team would have multiple draft picks to play with to bring in another QB to compete with Jacoby. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

I fully trust that Ballard would surround Brissett with all that he needs to be successful. And with Frank Reich on board, I would think he would know good QB prospects. And this team would have multiple draft picks to play with to bring in another QB to compete with Jacoby. 

 

So, if you're going to use a top four pick on another QB, you're kind of undermining the return on your trade, because you gave up a really good QB just to turn around and draft another one. And none of the top four QBs in this year's draft have Andrew Luck potential, IMO.

 

Or, you're going to draft a QB later and cross your fingers that he's good enough, eventually.

 

And while I am a fan of Jacoby Brissett, and I admire certain things about him, I don't think he's good enough to be the starting QB for a winning team, and I think he has a long way to go before he is good enough.

 

If I had to choose between Luck and all his uncertainty for the next five years, or one of the three scenarios above, I'm sticking with Luck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So, if you're going to use a top four pick on another QB, you're kind of undermining the return on your trade, because you gave up a really good QB just to turn around and draft another one. And none of the top four QBs in this year's draft have Andrew Luck potential, IMO.

 

Or, you're going to draft a QB later and cross your fingers that he's good enough, eventually.

 

And while I am a fan of Jacoby Brissett, and I admire certain things about him, I don't think he's good enough to be the starting QB for a winning team, and I think he has a long way to go before he is good enough.

 

If I had to choose between Luck and all his uncertainty for the next five years, or one of the three scenarios above, I'm sticking with Luck.

Riddick and Polian disagree with you..They were both talking about how good Brissett is on NFL Live today..Brissett has a ton of untapped potential, now with a good coach, some upgrades around him you can win with him..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So, if you're going to use a top four pick on another QB, you're kind of undermining the return on your trade, because you gave up a really good QB just to turn around and draft another one. And none of the top four QBs in this year's draft have Andrew Luck potential, IMO.

 

Or, you're going to draft a QB later and cross your fingers that he's good enough, eventually.

 

And while I am a fan of Jacoby Brissett, and I admire certain things about him, I don't think he's good enough to be the starting QB for a winning team, and I think he has a long way to go before he is good enough.

 

If I had to choose between Luck and all his uncertainty for the next five years, or one of the three scenarios above, I'm sticking with Luck.

 

Let’s put the health issues aside, because this trade can’t happen without Luck passing a physical.

 

Do you think, if we traded Andrew for say #1, #4, Myles, #33, AND #35, we couldn’t get Cousins in FA?  

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Cleveland would typically assume Luck’s CAP hit at that point.  That would leave us with the ability to outbid anyone for Cousins.  We could even pay him the $28-$30 mil and still have enough to sign more top-tier agents.  Is the difference between Luck and Cousins (even though we’re paying him more) worth what could assumably amount to Chubb, Nelson, Guice, Vander Esch, and Myles Garrett?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Luck is not being traded to the Browns.

Let's put this thread to bed.

 

You’re not wrong, but maybe realists should just stay away from threads dealing in hypotheticals.  Some of us appreciate the opportunity to think out abstract situations.  Are you worried that someone is going to believe this trade is likely to happen?  Are you really just trying to go out of your way to spoil other people’s fun?  Are you really THAT offended by how other people choose to waste their time?

 

I can assure you that most of us are able to reason out that this thread is based on the unlikliest of trades...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, That Guy said:

 

You’re not wrong, but maybe realists should just stay away from threads dealing in hypotheticals.  Some of us appreciate the opportunity to think out abstract situations.  Are you worried that someone is going to believe this trade is likely to happen?  Are you really just trying to go out of your way to spoil other people’s fun?  Are you really THAT offended by how other people choose to waste their time?

 

I can assure you that most of us are able to reason out that this thread is based on the unlikliest of trades...

You are right. You are That Guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You are right. You are That Guy.

Ha!  Too much so at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jshipp23 said:

Riddick and Polian disagree with you..They were both talking about how good Brissett is on NFL Live today..Brissett has a ton of untapped potential, now with a good coach, some upgrades around him you can win with him..

 

Yup, they disagree with me. I'm okay with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

I don't understand why everyone continues to be so enamored with the idea of trading Andrew Luck.

 

First, if he's healthy, the Browns win this trade going away. Everyone's in love with high draft picks, but draft picks don't win games. Healthy Luck is capable of carrying bad teams to double digit win seasons. 

 

Second, if he's not healthy, you don't get this kind of offer. And there's no way to prove his status before the draft.

 

Because of this, Luck is probably the least tradeable player in the league right now. It would be impossible to agree to a deal that would make sense to both sides.

 

Lastly, I think some Colts fans think it's easy to replace a franchise QB. Forget about Luck being great, one of the best QBs in the league. Just finding a really good starter like Alex Smith is something some teams have struggled to do for decades. The Dolphins had to lure Jay Cutler out of retirement last year. The Vikings or Broncos are probably about to give Kirk Cousins over $30m/year. Good QBs don't grow on trees.

I agree 100% with your Post and I wouldn't do this trade either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, That Guy said:

 

Let’s put the health issues aside, because this trade can’t happen without Luck passing a physical.

 

Do you think, if we traded Andrew for say #1, #4, Myles, #33, AND #35, we couldn’t get Cousins in FA?  

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Cleveland would typically assume Luck’s CAP hit at that point.  That would leave us with the ability to outbid anyone for Cousins.  We could even pay him the $28-$30 mil and still have enough to sign more top-tier agents.  Is the difference between Luck and Cousins (even though we’re paying him more) worth what could assumably amount to Chubb, Nelson, Guice, Vander Esch, and Myles Garrett?

 

Yeah, you have the money to sign Cousins. I think that would do it for top tier free agents, though. 

 

That's not a bad haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, you have the money to sign Cousins. I think that would do it for top tier free agents, though. 

 

That's not a bad haul.

Assuming Luck’s number on overthecap is right ($24.4 mil), I think sending his CAP number to the Browns and picking up Cousins at $30 mil would still leave us plenty of room for more free agents.  It’s esentially only a $5.6 mil deduction from our $70+ mil available.

 

I think we could still get Norwell, Hitchens, Robinson, Gaines, etc. with around $65 mil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Luck is not being traded to the Browns.

Let's put this thread to bed.

CC...its a rare deal that is bad for both sides.

 

If this deal is even considered......both GMs should be fired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

CC...its a rare deal that is bad for both sides.

 

If this deal is even considered......both GMs should be fired

I am speechless on how this was even thought of.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, That Guy said:

Assuming Luck’s number on overthecap is right ($24.4 mil), I think sending his CAP number to the Browns and picking up Cousins at $30 mil would still leave us plenty of room for more free agents.  It’s esentially only a $5.6 mil deduction from our $70+ mil available.

 

I think we could still get Norwell, Hitchens, Robinson, Gaines, etc. with around $65 mil.

 

Yeah, I wasn't accounting for getting rid of Luck's contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, That Guy said:

 

Let’s put the health issues aside, because this trade can’t happen without Luck passing a physical.

 

Do you think, if we traded Andrew for say #1, #4, Myles, #33, AND #35, we couldn’t get Cousins in FA?  

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Cleveland would typically assume Luck’s CAP hit at that point.  That would leave us with the ability to outbid anyone for Cousins.  We could even pay him the $28-$30 mil and still have enough to sign more top-tier agents.  Is the difference between Luck and Cousins (even though we’re paying him more) worth what could assumably amount to Chubb, Nelson, Guice, Vander Esch, and Myles Garrett?

 

Cleveland would assume Luck's Cap Hit,   but the Colts would have a 22.2 Million DEAD CAP hit.     At least,  this is the way I've always understood it.

 

So....    even if we could get the hault you think we could...     let's starf witht he Colts having 80 Mill to spend.

 

  80    Mill

- 22    Luck Dead Cap hit

-----

  58 Mill

- 30 Mill for Kirk Cousins that you want

-----

  28 Mill

- 13 Mil for Norwell

-----

   15 Mill

 

I'm not sure how you hope to get Hitchens, Robinson, Gaines etc plus sign draft picks,  plus have money left over to conduct season long business?

 

Clearly I'm not understanding something because Superman hasn't disagreed with you,  and he understands this better than anyone.

 

So, please explain this to me......   Cleveland can absorb Luck's Cap Hit,   but when we trade Luck,  the Colts have to take a giant DEAD CAP hit.     You're telling me that's NOT the case?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colts fans have been spoiled by elite QB play for the last 20+ years... they think QBs of the talent of Manning and Luck are available to be gotten any time you want... cuz you know... we were able to pick 2 when we wanted/needed them. Half the teams in the league haven't had better talent than either Luck or Manning for the full history of their franchises. You can go 20-30 years in a row picking QBs in the 1st and not get a QB close to as good as Luck.

 

The reality is... if Luck is healthy, he's the type of QB no team would trade away and if he's not healthy("close to being finished") no team would trade for him. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stitches said:

Colts fans have been spoiled by elite QB play for the last 20+ years... they think QBs of the talent of Manning and Luck are available to be gotten any time you want... cuz you know... we were able to pick 2 when we wanted/needed them. Half the teams in the league haven't had better talent than either Luck or Manning for the full history of their franchises. You can go 20-30 years in a row picking QBs in the 1st and not get a QB close to as good as Luck.

 

The reality is... if Luck is healthy, he's the type of QB no team would trade away and if he's not healthy("close to being finished") no team would trade for him. 

I think you might be looking at it different than those who may want Luck traded.

As you say we have been spoiled with great QB play for 20+ years but how much hardware do we have to show for it?

It's understandable why some have that mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I am speechless on how this was even thought of.

Someone thinking Reeeaaaally hard. 

 

Like someone said, if this was Madden take the trade. The user can get by with a lesser QB. I thought Sam Darnold was sinking last year anyhow? Who was the last good USC QB to make it in the NFL? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think you might be looking at it different than those who may want Luck traded.

As you say we have been spoiled with great QB play for 20+ years but how much hardware do we have to show for it?

It's understandable why some have that mindset.

Winning a Superbowl is a long shot, even if you have one of the best QBs in the league. Winning a SB and going to another is a pretty good 15 years stretch with Peyton. Could you have done better? Sure, but there are teams in the league that don't even go to the playoffs for 10-15 years stretches because they don't have a QB and strike out on QBs year after year after year... 

 

Also - having a franchise QB doesn't absolve us from building the rest of the roster to be good enough to compete for championships. A QB can only do as much... because when you advance in the playoffs you meet other teams that have good QBs, but they also have great defenses and O-lines... and an amazing coach... unlike the Luck Colts have had so far.

 

The point is - yeah, you do need to surround the franchise QB with great pieces, but there is practically zero chance to have prolonged success without a great QB. This is really the keystone for long-term uninterrupted success in the league. To have 1 year with losing record in the span of 12-13 years is incredible! This is what a franchise QB gives you as a baseline. That was what Peyton brought. This is what Luck was bringing until he started to get injured and missing games. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think you might be looking at it different than those who may want Luck traded.

As you say we have been spoiled with great QB play for 20+ years but how much hardware do we have to show for it?

It's understandable why some have that mindset.

I honestly wouldn't trade our time from 2002-2014 for almost anything. We hade a 13 season stretch there where we were Very Good to Great, only in 2011 we were Bad = the season Peyton didn't play. We had 9 seasons in a row where we won 10 games or more with Peyton + won a SB, then 3 seasons in a row we won 11 games with Luck + played in a Title Game with him. Yeah it would've been nice to have won more than 1 SB win but we won 1 and were one of the best teams in the league for 13 seasons straight (except 2011). Winning a SB is very tough to do, just ask the Bills from 1990-1993 with Jim Kelly, McNabb's Eagles from 2001-2004, Rivers and the Chargers from 2006-2009. All of those teams had Very Good to Great seasons in those time frames and the result = 0 SB wins. Dan Marino would love to have 1 SB win - he doesnt, how about the 80's Bears? - They only won 1 SB in 1985 and had all of that talent on Defense + Walter Payton. I think people get to hung up on what the Pats have accomplished so they just poo poo what our success has been. Hell Jacksonville wins the Division and people throw a parade, we win the Division and people are like MEH lmao 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it comes down to how optimistic you are about lucks future.  id trade him because i dont think hes playing another 10 years.   we could have players from this trade long after luck is gone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Cleveland would assume Luck's Cap Hit,   but the Colts would have a 22.2 Million DEAD CAP hit.     At least,  this is the way I've always understood it.

 

So....    even if we could get the hault you think we could...     let's starf witht he Colts having 80 Mill to spend.

 

  80    Mill

- 22    Luck Dead Cap hit

-----

  58 Mill

- 30 Mill for Kirk Cousins that you want

-----

  28 Mill

- 13 Mil for Norwell

-----

   15 Mill

 

I'm not sure how you hope to get Hitchens, Robinson, Gaines etc plus sign draft picks,  plus have money left over to conduct season long business?

 

Clearly I'm not understanding something because Superman hasn't disagreed with you,  and he understands this better than anyone.

 

So, please explain this to me......   Cleveland can absorb Luck's Cap Hit,   but when we trade Luck,  the Colts have to take a giant DEAD CAP hit.     You're telling me that's NOT the case?

 

My understanding was that you are entirely correct IF we were to cut Andrew Luck and the Browns signed him to a contract.  At that point, we take an accelerated CAP hit equal to his guaranteed money. 

 

I was under the impression that a trade worked differently.  I thought that, were we to trade Andrew Luck, the Browns would assume liability for his entire contract (and all CAP ramifications attached to it).  When they traded for Osweiler, did the Texans take a CAP hit, or did the Browns assume the whole contract?

 

That is where I may be wrong (that may even be part that's negotiable in the trade), but I think a trade would remove the entire contract from our books.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So, if you're going to use a top four pick on another QB, you're kind of undermining the return on your trade, because you gave up a really good QB just to turn around and draft another one. And none of the top four QBs in this year's draft have Andrew Luck potential, IMO.

 

Or, you're going to draft a QB later and cross your fingers that he's good enough, eventually.

 

And while I am a fan of Jacoby Brissett, and I admire certain things about him, I don't think he's good enough to be the starting QB for a winning team, and I think he has a long way to go before he is good enough.

 

If I had to choose between Luck and all his uncertainty for the next five years, or one of the three scenarios above, I'm sticking with Luck.

 

Chris strikes me as the type of GM who believes he could make it work even without an elite QB. And with the return you'd get by trading Luck, you'd have a much more loaded roster around whichever QB is starting. Adding Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, AND Garrett would go a long way to improving this talent deficient roster, and would give Indy a potentially elite defense with both Garrett and Chubb, along with Hooker and Wilson in the secondary for the future, and their running game would be great with both Barkley and Nelson at OG in the fold. 

 

I would be against trading Luck if I fully believed he will be back better than ever. I just am skeptical he will be better than before he was injured. I believe he will be about 80% of what he was going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.