Andrew Luck's comparison to Matthew Stafford

[colt18]

1 hour ago, Smoke317 said:

Landry was good???  Poppycock. Who in their right mind would say something like that???

I've never heard anyone say Greg Toler was good

 

 

 

ever

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, colt18 said:

I've never heard anyone say Greg Toler was good

 

 

 

ever

He sucked!  Dougdew was being TOO positive about our Defense between 2012-2014.

[Smoke317]

14 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He sucked!  Dougdew was being TOO positive about our Defense between 2012-2014.

I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to use poppycock in a sentence. But seriously, only Werner & Trent were more disappointing than Landry.  Maybe only Werner.  Landry was that terrible. I still remember that pic of him with biceps bigger than a fully grown man’s wIstline...  You can’t get that big without chemical help...  Doug was way too positive indeed.

[IinD]

10 hours ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Bethea should have never been let go.

100% always believed that. He was still productive for a few seasons after that. I hated that move. And if I'm keeping it 100, never understood how you couldn't make Dwight work on a defense. I don't buy the 3-4 switch. 

 

But totally agree on Bethea.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to use poppycock in a sentence. But seriously, only Werner & Trent were more disappointing than Landry.  Maybe only Werner.  Landry was that terrible. I still remember that pic of him with biceps bigger than a fully grown man’s wIstline...  You can’t get that big without chemical help...  Doug was way too positive indeed.

Poppycock is an awesome term. Great stuff . That term is one of my favorites. 

[IinD]

Gotta be good to be Matt Stafford. He's had a couple mega contracts and I don't have one memorable game from him in my head (opening day loss aside from whatever year that was).

[DougDew]

12 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

I think Doug is Grigson's dad.  It really is the only reason he defends him so much

That's not a defense of Grigson.  Toler and Landry were fine early into their contracts.  And with VD pretty much removing his man on his side, Butler playing well in the slot, and Bethea playing well, the secondary was very good.

 

That fact that others refused to see it because of the rage they had towards Grigson not signing big time names to every position, doesn't change the fact that the secondary was not a problem.

 

Add Redding and Mathis and the overall D was good to very good.  Eliminate the slow starts/ 3 and outs and Lucks stupid picks and they'd be statistically better. 

 

But the LBs stunk, and they did/have for quite some time.

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, colt18 said:

I've never heard anyone say Greg Toler was good

 

 

 

ever

Its because nobody knew about him at the time.  They hated the signing of a no-name corner right after being sold the concept of "building the monster" with ChuckStrong's resume of being the ex Raven DC

 

...and then ...What?  Who's this guy?

 

They hated him before he even got on the field, because he wasn't good enough for most people the moment he was signed.

 

He was the #2 corner and played well enough in that role until he got too injured.  And yes, he lasted too long here after that.

[Myles]

Luck and Stafford is a fairly accurate comparison.   Both teams feel they can win with them as their QB.  Their stats are extremely similar.  

[DaColts85]

27 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its because nobody knew about him at the time.  They hated the signing of a no-name corner right after being sold the concept of "building the monster" with ChuckStrong's resume of being the ex Raven DC

 

...and then ...What?  Who's this guy?

 

They hated him before he even got on the field, because he wasn't good enough for most people the moment he was signed.

 

He was the #2 corner and played well enough in that role until he got too injured.  And yes, he lasted too long here after that.

No, he was not liked because he was hurt in AZ before he was signed here. Gave a bad contract and guess what...was hurt here as well.  He was exploited multiple times but he did have a few good plays sprinkled in there. Saying over all he was good for us is just not true. VD was a great pickup and did well when healthy for us. Bethea was good and Butler was very good for us. Now claiming Landry was good in the beginning is just not true either. His best day as a Colt was signing a contract. After that he was suspect on the field and that was only a few games since he was always injured or suspended.

 

[DougDew]

14 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Luck's contract still isn't an issue. The Colts will have $100m in cap space next season, with Luck hitting the cap for $27.5m, about 15% of the cap. 

 

The QB contract is never an excuse. If you want a good QB -- and everyone does, that's why they're making $30m/year -- you have to pay him. The critical part is drafting well, developing young players and coaching well. Coincidentally, that's what the Seahawks did well in 2012-2014. They weren't SB contenders just because they hadn't paid Russell Wilson; they were contenders because they did that other stuff well, in addition to having good QB play.

NCF has this pattern of constantly misrepresenting what I'm saying (or simply unable to figure it out) then using pejoratives to describe what I said, or me personally.

 

I said investing.  I never said exclusively money or contract.  The thought being is that Seattle got elite-ish QB play from Wilson, while investing only a 3rd round pick.  That frees up other picks to use elsewhere on the roster, like defense.  But yes, as Wilson and Sherman get paid and age while getting paid, things aren't as good as they once were

 

The Colts got elite-ish type QB play by using the first pick in the draft, investing a high pick on what could equate to a Von Miller or Q Nelson, and at the time, was actually the equivalent of two more first round picks and two more high second round picks.  That's a lot of investment in an elite-ish QB that could have been used to build a roster, while other teams have gotten that level of play from investing a lot less.

 

Its what Ballard is doing now, by trading the #3.  He didn't have to take Sam Darnold.  But yes, he has to use those picks wisely.  

 

I know you understand this, but for others:

 

Running an organization takes resources.  In football, that's salary cap and draft picks.  They're fungable...interchangeable.  Unless you get lucky (no, not a genius) high dollar contracts tend to get the same level of talent as high draft picks.  And using up those resources have opportunity costs at the time.  As an example:  Ballard picked Nelson at #6 when he had an offer from BUFF for #12 and 22.....chose Nelson over the opportunity to take Isiah Wynn and LB Rashaad Evans.  He's making an investment that the incremental impact that Nelson can make over Wynn is higher than what Evans can do over Anthony Walker or Skai Moore (A 5th rounder and a UDFA).  That's a big investment in Q Nelson that we will see if it pays off.  If you make nonoptimal investments, you progress slower than you otherwise could.

 

So I look at the early Luck years as forgoing other high draft picks to choose Luck.  And his level of play needs to be better than what we could have had with PMs last few years, Foles or Cousins on the bench, and the slew of high draft picks on the defense.  (BTW, does that sound like a defense of Grigson?)

 

All Seattle had to do was invest a 3rd round pick.

 

None of this has to do with money.  

 

 

[aaron11]

i dont get why so many colts fans have a problem with this comparison. stat wise they are very similar except in playoff wins 

 

the lions defense has been bad, and their running game has actually been worse than ours.  their coaching was questionable too

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont get why so many colts fans have a problem with this comparison. stat wise they are very similar except in playoff wins 

 

the lions defense has been bad, and their running game has actually been worse than ours.  their coaching was questionable too

I agree with the comparison of the QBs.  I think their careers and situations are similar, except Stafford was nicked up during his early years.  Both have been a bit more careless with the ball than what you want from a high draft choice, with Stafford being more careless, IMO.

[DaColts85]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree with the comparison of the QBs.  I think their careers and situations are similar, except Stafford was nicked up during his early years.  Both have been a bit more careless with the ball than what you want from a high draft choice, with Stafford being more careless, IMO.

I mean having Calvin Johnson is pretty nice. Just saying!

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, DaColts85 said:

I mean having Calvin Johnson is pretty nice. Just saying!

no reason to hold that against MS.  luck got to play in a weak division his first three years, that probably helped his record somewhat 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

22 hours ago, DougDew said:

Not true.  The defense was actually very good in the early Luck years.   Redding and Mathis, as well as probably the best secondary in the NFL at the time.  Davis and a pre injury Toler were excellent man corners,  and an enthused Landry and Bethea made a great S team.  Butler was a great slot corner.

 

But Luck competed in the AFC South and Detroit always had GB to contend with.  I think the Bears may have had decent teams back then.

 

"Very good" is a stretch, more like slightly above average. And they definitely were not the best secondary any of those 3 years... 2012 it was the Ravens, 2013 & 14 it was the Legion of Boom.

[DaColts85]

7 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

no reason to hold that against MS.  luck got to play in a weak division his first three years, that probably helped his record somewhat 

I don't hold that against anyone...it is a fact. Plain and simple.

 

Outside of Aaron and the Packers...Stafford's early years (since that is what everyone is comparing) the Vikings - not that solid, Bears - not that solid.  But wait you can't hold the conference against Luck right?

[DougDew]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Landry was good THE FIRST TWO YEARS?   Landry was only with the Colts for two years.   He signed for four years and was never good for the team.  He was GONE in two years.   Released.

 

As for “investing” in QBs...   Luck only became an issue for the salary cap in year 6.  That’s when his new contract kicked in.   The Grigson excuse never held up and was killed here and in the media.    If you want to accept it, be my guest, but you’re on the wrong side of history.

 

Landry was overrated before he was signed and overcompensated when he was here, but he wasn't a bad player when he was on the field.

 

We replaced Bethea with Adams and improved the FS position at the time, but IIRC, we've never had as good of SS play as the years we had with Landry, and that's sad.  Current crop included...so far.  So even though Landry was released for not caring anymore, I don't know if we have ever fully replaced him.  I think Geathers was the plan, but that has yet to work out correctly.

 

I always thought the criticism of Landry and Toler was heavy handed. They had expectations that were pretty high and never met, but that's not the same thing as them being bad players.

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, DaColts85 said:

I don't hold that against anyone...it is a fact. Plain and simple.

 

Outside of Aaron and the Packers...Stafford's early years (since that is what everyone is comparing) the Vikings - not that solid, Bears - not that solid.  But wait you can't hold the conference against Luck right?

i do think luck benefited from playing in the south during those 11-5 years

 

stafford was on a horrible lions team with a bad defense and worse running game than the colts.  the packers were clearly better, and the vikings were more rounded too.  he did have Cj, but luck had reggie and ty

[DaColts85]

Just now, aaron11 said:

i do think luck benefited from playing in the south during those 11-5 years

 

stafford was on a horrible lions team with a bad defense and worse running game than the colts.  the packers were clearly better, and the vikings were more rounded too.  he did have Cj, but luck had reggie and ty

He had Reggie for a year.  I like TY but no comparison between him and Calvin.  He had Calvin for quit a few years as well.

[chad72]

I am just eating popcorn. 

[aaron11]

Just now, DaColts85 said:

He had Reggie for a year.

it was more like 2 and half years and we have not won more than 8 games since he left.  Reggie had 40 first downs in 2014

[Tsarquise]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

i dont get why so many colts fans have a problem with this comparison. stat wise they are very similar except in playoff wins 

 

the lions defense has been bad, and their running game has actually been worse than ours.  their coaching was questionable too

Because the thought of letting go of Manning for a Stafford-like player is unsettling.... Lol

 

A far cry from the once in a generation QB advertisement that was being tagged on Luck.

[chad72]

15 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Because the thought of letting go of Manning for a Stafford-like player is unsettling.... Lol

 

A far cry from the once in a generation QB advertisement that being tagged on Luck.

 

Ultimately, both Stafford and Luck, like other QBs, will be judged by playoff appearances and SBs, if they can will their team to that biggest stage with their supporting cast.

 

If Luck turns out to be like Eli Manning, throwing picks in the regular season and once he gets to the postseason, turns it on and plays like a world beater, all will be forgotten. No one will even care about how Eli Manning's teams never gave up more than 20 points in any of their 2 SB winning runs, all glory to the QB.  

[Tsarquise]

Yeah, win the superbowl, and you become the man!

 

Which reminds me of a post on the Eagles forum where someone stated that Wentz was the best QB in Eagles franchise, and they many responded with Foles being the best. He is technically the most successful QB in Eagles franchise because he has that ring. 

[Four2itus]

6 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Yeah, win the superbowl, and you become the man!

 

Which reminds me of a post on the Eagles forum where someone stated that Wentz was the best QB in Eagles franchise, and they many responded with Foles being the best. He is technically the most successful QB in Eagles franchise because he has that ring. 

How absurd. There as so many great QB's from that franchise. 

 

My fave will always be Cunningham. The original mobile QB in my books. 

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Yeah, win the superbowl, and you become the man!

 

Which reminds me of a post on the Eagles forum where someone stated that Wentz was the best QB in Eagles franchise, and they many responded with Foles being the best. He is technically the most successful QB in Eagles franchise because he has that ring. 

I have no idea why Foles doesn't get more credit.  There was a time during his first segment with the Eagles where they had a winning record and his stats were gawdy, like 16 TDs and 0 picks, and instead of giving him credit it was always......yes, but.......

 

I suppose he is a product of the system....yet Wentz somehow isn't?

[Myles]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Luck's contract still isn't an issue. The Colts will have $100m in cap space next season, with Luck hitting the cap for $27.5m, about 15% of the cap. 

 

The QB contract is never an excuse. If you want a good QB -- and everyone does, that's why they're making $30m/year -- you have to pay him. The critical part is drafting well, developing young players and coaching well. Coincidentally, that's what the Seahawks did well in 2012-2014. They weren't SB contenders just because they hadn't paid Russell Wilson; they were contenders because they did that other stuff well, in addition to having good QB play.

Maybe not a great excuse, but there is something to it.

 

With Aaron Rodgers now eliminated from winning the Super Bowl, it means that Steve Young’s record as the highest salary cap clogging QB to win a Super Bowl remains intact. Young’s cap figure that season took up 13.1% of the 49ers salary cap. That year was 1994, the first year the salary cap was in existence. So in 20 years no Super Bowl winning team has invested a higher percentage of their cap on a QB than the first team to ever win one in the cap era.  Yet teams continue to pour more and more money into that position each season.

Since Young’s championship in 1994, only three other quarterbacks have eaten up 10% of their teams salary cap- Eli Manning in 2011 (11.7%), Peyton Manning in 2006 (10.4%), and Brett Favre in 1996 (10.2%). The average spend on a Super Bowl QB has been just 6.4%. Russell Wilson’s 0.49% would rank below all others except for Brady in 2001 who cost just 0.47% of the Patriots salary cap. If Brady wins he will become just the fourth QB to win a title after signing a large contract extension. The others to do so were the Manning’s and Ben Roethlisberger.

[DaColts85]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

it was more like 2 and half years and we have not won more than 8 games since he left.  Reggie had 40 first downs in 2014

Ok we like stats...Reggie's 3 years with Luck

106rec and 1,355 yads 5TD's, 38 and 503 yards 2 TD's, 64 rec and 779 yards 2TD's

 

Calvin's first 3 years with Stafford

67 rec 984yards 5TD's,  77rec 1,120yds 12TD's, 96rec 1,681yds 16TD's

 

Both QB's first 3 years with a key WR. You point Wayne vs Calvin...

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

"Very good" is a stretch, more like slightly above average. And they definitely were not the best secondary any of those 3 years... 2012 it was the Ravens, 2013 & 14 it was the Legion of Boom.

Yes, in my first comment I was wrong to say the secondary was the best or even one of the best in the NFL, but it was very good, despite Landry's and Toler underachieving expectations..  And I concede that "above average" for the entire defense is a better description than "very good".  But poor to mediocre I think was inaccurate as well.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yes, in my first comment I was wrong to say the secondary was the best or even one of the best in the NFL, but it was very good, despite Landry's and Toler underachieving expectations..  And I concede that "above average" for the entire defense is a better description than "very good".  But poor to mediocre I think was inaccurate as well.

Mediocre = Average, so you say Above Average and I say Average. I can buy Above Average - we are close to the same page there. When I said Bad to Medicore, my Bad comment comes from how we played the Pats in the Playoffs. In 2013 we gave up 43 points against them and we let Blount run for 200 Yards. In 2014 in the AFC Title Game they put 45 on us.

[aaron11]

3 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

Ok we like stats...Reggie's 3 years with Luck

106rec and 1,355 yads 5TD's, 38 and 503 yards 2 TD's, 64 rec and 779 yards 2TD's

 

Calvin's first 3 years with Stafford

67 rec 984yards 5TD's,  77rec 1,120yds 12TD's, 96rec 1,681yds 16TD's

 

Both QB's first 3 years with a key WR. You point Wayne vs Calvin...

point is that both teams had WR talent. 

 

i think luck and stafford are pretty close and the only stat largely  in lucks favor is wins.  obviously wins are important but i do think luck has had a better team and easier division.  

[Tsarquise]

50 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I have no idea why Foles doesn't get more credit.  There was a time during his first segment with the Eagles where they had a winning record and his stats were gawdy, like 16 TDs and 0 picks, and instead of giving him credit it was always......yes, but.......

 

I suppose he is a product of the system....yet Wentz somehow isn't?

I don't understand either. Imagine how Files feels lol.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Mediocre = Average, so you say Above Average and I say Average. I can buy Above Average - we are close to the same page there. When I said Bad to Medicore, my Bad comment comes from how we played the Pats in the Playoffs. In 2013 we gave up 43 points against them and we let Blount run for 200 Yards. In 2014 in the AFC Title Game they put 45 on us.

Yes, but as explained many times before, those huge point totals were as much the result of the O going 3 and out and NE starting at their own 40 than the defense.  And those were the times NE didn't start at our own 40 after a Luck pick.

 

I simply think the D we had the first 2 years of Luck's career was the best D he's had.  And I think it was much better than most would say it is.  I'd like to have that defense now, and see Ballard replace the guys that would need upgrading as we go.  But what we're going to have now looks promising.

[DaColts85]

3 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

point is that both teams had WR talent. 

 

i think luck and stafford are pretty close and the only stat largely  in lucks favor is wins.  obviously wins are important but i do think luck has had a better team and easier division.  

In the same time period Luck had a better team yea i can agree with that. Division wise yea I mean 2012 the Vikes, Bears, and Pack were good.  Not to much after that except for the Packers. But Jags were really bad.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes, but as explained many times before, those huge point totals were as much the result of the O going 3 and out and NE starting at their own 40 than the defense.  And those were the times NE didn't start at our own 40 after a Luck pick.

 

I simply think the D we had the first 2 years of Luck's career was the best D he's had.  And I think it was much better than most would say it is.  I'd like to have that defense now, and see Ballard replace the guys that would need upgrading as we go.  But what we're going to have now looks promising.

I would definitely love to have 2013 Mathis, if we just had that our Defense now would be much better. 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Four2itus said:

How absurd. There as so many great QB's from that franchise. 

 

My fave will always be Cunningham. The original mobile QB in my books. 

Ron Jaworski  "Jaws" was a petty good QB too. He took them to 4 straight playoffs and a super bowl.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Tsarquise said:

Yeah, win the superbowl, and you become the man!

 

Which reminds me of a post on the Eagles forum where someone stated that Wentz was the best QB in Eagles franchise, and they many responded with Foles being the best. He is technically the most successful QB in Eagles franchise because he has that ring. 

More Successful yes because he won a SB, better than McNabb no way IMO. Better than Cunningham no way. McNabb actually led teams for full seasons to 5 NFC Title Games and a SB appearances. McNabb gets so overlooked in the history of Football, he had huge success in winning and put up Good numbers for alot of years.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

Maybe not a great excuse, but there is something to it.

 

With Aaron Rodgers now eliminated from winning the Super Bowl, it means that Steve Young’s record as the highest salary cap clogging QB to win a Super Bowl remains intact. Young’s cap figure that season took up 13.1% of the 49ers salary cap. That year was 1994, the first year the salary cap was in existence. So in 20 years no Super Bowl winning team has invested a higher percentage of their cap on a QB than the first team to ever win one in the cap era.  Yet teams continue to pour more and more money into that position each season.

Since Young’s championship in 1994, only three other quarterbacks have eaten up 10% of their teams salary cap- Eli Manning in 2011 (11.7%), Peyton Manning in 2006 (10.4%), and Brett Favre in 1996 (10.2%). The average spend on a Super Bowl QB has been just 6.4%. Russell Wilson’s 0.49% would rank below all others except for Brady in 2001 who cost just 0.47% of the Patriots salary cap. If Brady wins he will become just the fourth QB to win a title after signing a large contract extension. The others to do so were the Manning’s and Ben Roethlisberger.

 

So, small picture, that stat isn't correct. Peyton Manning in 2015 wound up making $19m since he hit his bonuses, which was 13.2% of the cap. 

 

But big picture, it's correlation vs causation. Obviously, the more you pay any one player, the less you can pay the rest of the team. Paying a QB top market will cost you another high caliber player, maybe two. But the Falcons didn't lose to the Pats because Matt Ryan made too much. The Broncos didn't lose to the Seahawks because Peyton Manning made too much. 

 

And the most obvious response is that, without those MVP QBs, those teams don't get to the Super Bowl in the first place. If you want them, you must pay them, bottom line.

 

End of the day, the strategy is still the same: draft well, develop players, coach well, and do all of that multiple years in a row. If you add a really good QB to that mix, you have a championship contender. 

 

The current Colts roster is a testament to this. We have a really good QB making almost 14% of the salary cap, but the reason the Colts aren't a contender isn't because Luck makes too much. It's because we haven't done those other things -- draft well, develop players, and coach well, multiple years in a row.

 

And now we're at a competitive advantage. Because the Colts have stacked and rolled cap space, we have an adjusted salary cap figure that's much higher than league average. So Luck's cap hit in 2019 will actually be more like 11.5% of the adjusted cap. So to whatever extent the QB's cap hit actually does correlate to team success, the Colts have an additional buffer to play with. 

[Superman]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

NCF has this pattern of constantly misrepresenting what I'm saying (or simply unable to figure it out) then using pejoratives to describe what I said, or me personally.

 

I said investing.  I never said exclusively money or contract.  The thought being is that Seattle got elite-ish QB play from Wilson, while investing only a 3rd round pick.  That frees up other picks to use elsewhere on the roster, like defense.  But yes, as Wilson and Sherman get paid and age while getting paid, things aren't as good as they once were

 

The Colts got elite-ish type QB play by using the first pick in the draft, investing a high pick on what could equate to a Von Miller or Q Nelson, and at the time, was actually the equivalent of two more first round picks and two more high second round picks.  That's a lot of investment in an elite-ish QB that could have been used to build a roster, while other teams have gotten that level of play from investing a lot less.

 

Its what Ballard is doing now, by trading the #3.  He didn't have to take Sam Darnold.  But yes, he has to use those picks wisely.  

 

I know you understand this, but for others:

 

Running an organization takes resources.  In football, that's salary cap and draft picks.  They're fungable...interchangeable.  Unless you get lucky (no, not a genius) high dollar contracts tend to get the same level of talent as high draft picks.  And using up those resources have opportunity costs at the time.  As an example:  Ballard picked Nelson at #6 when he had an offer from BUFF for #12 and 22.....chose Nelson over the opportunity to take Isiah Wynn and LB Rashaad Evans.  He's making an investment that the incremental impact that Nelson can make over Wynn is higher than what Evans can do over Anthony Walker or Skai Moore (A 5th rounder and a UDFA).  That's a big investment in Q Nelson that we will see if it pays off.  If you make nonoptimal investments, you progress slower than you otherwise could.

 

So I look at the early Luck years as forgoing other high draft picks to choose Luck.  And his level of play needs to be better than what we could have had with PMs last few years, Foles or Cousins on the bench, and the slew of high draft picks on the defense.  (BTW, does that sound like a defense of Grigson?)

 

All Seattle had to do was invest a 3rd round pick.

 

None of this has to do with money.  

 

It's fine if you didn't mean money. My point still stands. The Colts aren't struggling because of Luck's contract, and I don't think they will any time throughout the life of this contract, barring weirdness with a new CBA.

 

As for your point about what the Colts invested in Luck, I get it, and it's factually accurate. Your calculus would be well applied to most of the roster, but the hardest position to fill in team sports is QB, so when you pick #1 overall and you like the best QB in the draft, don't overthink it, just draft him and move on. They could have kept Manning, but that decision isn't even worth discussing; he's out of the league now, and Luck should be entering his prime, especially now that it looks like he has a good offensive coaching staff. 

 

The reason the Colts weren't able to stock their roster in subsequent seasons isn't because they didn't turn that #1 pick into a bevy of picks, and then find a steal in a later round. (Side point: Generally, later round QBs don't wind up being starting QBs for SB teams. They usually wind up bouncing around the league for a few seasons.)

 

What cost the Colts was poor drafting, bottom line. After 2012, Grigson's drafting was objectively terrible; most of his picks from 2013-15 are not just off the team, but completely out of the league. With good drafting, the Colts could have a great roster right now, even with spending the #1 on Luck, and paying him like a great QB. 

 

Unfortunately, the Colts use of free agency wasn't any better over that stretch, and the coaching staff didn't excel at developing players or gameplanning against good teams. The resources they spent on the QB position was legitimately the least of the team's worries, and still is. 

 

And now, the Colts are in a similar situation as in 2012. They're going into a season in which they'll have a ton of cap space, they have a QB that they could legitimately flip into a huge haul of draft picks, and at the same time save some money. But you don't get rid of a good, young QB that has shown the ability to carry your team to the playoffs. The blueprint is the same: draft well, develop players, coach well, and do so multiple years in a row.

 

Time will tell if that actually happens, but if in four years the Colts still aren't a contender, it won't be because Luck makes too much money, or because they didn't at some point flip him for a bunch of draft picks. It will be because they didn't do those other things well.