Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

It Was Idiotic Not To Trade The Pick.


KyFan18

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No Snyder is desperate to get a franchise qb like a good 10-12 teams in the league right now, there are 5 pieces that every team needs to be solid at on both side of the ball to win championships. QB your field general, WR your play maker, LT your blind side protector and on defense you add DE your pass rusher and CB another playmaker without those pieces no team can be successful.

Sorry, haha, but you can win with different pieces. You don't have to have those 5 pieces to win championships, you can have different ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, haha, but you can win with different pieces. You don't have to have those 5 pieces to win championships, you can have different ones.

lets name some teams,

Tampa bay, ravens

Here are teams with just "great QB's" not once in a lifetime ones:

steelers

giants

rams

Here are teams with legendary QB's

Colts

Pats

Packers

you don't have to have a legend at QB, you are right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, haha, but you can win with different pieces. You don't have to have those 5 pieces to win championships, you can have different ones.

Now in this era of the NFL teams who won the last 3-5 years they all had a QB,LT,WR's, pass rush, and a good secondary. I'm not pulling this outta my behind it's proven just look back and you'll see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets name some teams,

Tampa bay, ravens

Here are teams with just "great QB's" not once in a lifetime ones:

steelers

giants

rams

Here are teams with legendary QB's

Colts

Pats

Packers

you don't have to have a legend at QB, you are right

I didn't say those positions needed to be at the top of their game they just have to be productive by the time they reach the title game to break it down for you both the ravens and tampa bay didn't have the best qb's but they played really good in the superbowl both teams had productive receivers, protection on the line and I don't think I need to talk about what those defense's did in there respective superbowl's. Look at the Pat's from this year's SB they lacked the secondary to stop the pass and lost the game they had the other 4 but the last 1 cost them the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say those positions needed to be at the top of their game they just have to be productive by the time they reach the title game to break it down for you both the ravens and tampa bay didn't have the best qb's but they played really good in the superbowl both teams had productive receivers, protection on the line and I don't think I need to talk about what those defense's did in there respective superbowl's. Look at the Pat's from this year's SB they lacked the secondary to stop the pass and lost the game they had the other 4 but the last 1 cost them the game.

we are on the same page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quantity doesnt nessesarly mean quality, look at the Saints who traded there whole draft away for Ricky Williams, and the Redskins didnt do anything with it.

But quantity of quality is better than both. If Grigson is as good as a talent evaluator as he is supposed to be then he should be able to do amazing things with that many 1st and 2nd round picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But quantity of quality is better than both. If Grigson is as good as a talent evaluator as he is supposed to be then he should be able to do amazing things with that many 1st and 2nd round picks.

But he can't control the talent coming into the NFL there are some many different variables when it comes to drafting including teams picking in front of you that take the guys you want. However in the NFL excuses are for the weak and jobless haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would immediately take us out of ANY serious free agent path to addressing our weaknesses at CB/OG/SS/DT.

we are not getting any free agents either way. Cutting manning did not bring us any free agents. I disagree with you completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are not getting any free agents either way. Cutting manning did not bring us any free agents. I disagree with you completely.

Cutting Manning provided us with an extra $6.6MM to the 2012 cap,

$18MM to the 2013 cap

$19MM to the 2014 cap

$20MM to the 2015 cap.

That is a lot of cash to spend on FAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say right now whether or not it was a good decision to keep the pick. We'll know in time. Simple as that.

As a "keep Manning" backer from the beginning, I can say that trading the draft pick would have been a mistake of epic proportions.

This complete overhaul was necessary with all the contracts structured to keep everyone for one more Super Bowl push which unfortunately Peyton couldn't lead, so with no money to keep the team intact the only option left was draft a new leader and dump what they couldn't afford.

I don't know this as fact, it's just what I'm observing is happening now. Irsay wanted PM to have another ring so he freed him up to find a team to do it with...the Colts wouldn't be able to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rams got a king's ransom for the second pick. (Three firsts and a second). Think of what the Colts could have gotten for the first pick. Wouldn't be easier to rebuild with 5 first round picks and 4 second round picks in the next three years? Trust me, Andrew Luck will not be the last great QB to play football.

We're so gutted, how do you know we won't be the first pick again next year? How about trading then pick to someone who desperately wants Barkley? We will have our Franchise QB and a couple extra round one picks over the next few drafts. Of course, we could do well too and not have the first pick, just our normal draft to continue filling in where we need it most. Either way, I'm good with it as the first two years of the reformulation project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? I

As a "keep Manning" backer from the beginning, I can say that trading the draft pick would have been a mistake of epic proportions.

This complete overhaul was necessary with all the contracts structured to keep everyone for one more Super Bowl push which unfortunately Peyton couldn't lead, so with no money to keep the team intact the only option left was draft a new leader and dump what they couldn't afford.

I don't know this as fact, it's just what I'm observing is happening now. Irsay wanted PM to have another ring so he freed him up to find a team to do it with...the Colts wouldn't be able to.

Watching the moves our team has made in the off season and thinking about some of the drafts we could have got. I think we could have been contenders with Manning. I'm not sure i buy the " Irsay wanted PM to have another ring so he freed him up to find a team to do it with," argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? I

Watching the moves our team has made in the off season and thinking about some of the drafts we could have got. I think we could have been contenders with Manning. I'm not sure i buy the " Irsay wanted PM to have another ring so he freed him up to find a team to do it with," argument.

No, we couldn't. First off, we would already be at cap space capacity, and have to either cut players, or forego signing a few draft picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Redskins beat the SB winners home and away last season. With no QB. If RG3 is as good as the experts think he is (and he can stay uninjured), it might not be such a bad idea.

Lots of ifs and buts I know....

I think I always try to ignore the fact that the recent SB champs were really a crappy 9-7 regular season team who had the good fortune of seeing the Cowboys ice their own kicker and the dream team combust among other goodies.

I guess you just gotta peak at the right time maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I always try to ignore the fact that the recent SB champs were really a crappy 9-7 regular season team who had the good fortune of seeing the Cowboys ice their own kicker and the dream team combust among other goodies.

I guess you just gotta peak at the right time maybe.

the same can be said about your Packers from the year before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the same can be said about your Packers from the year before

This is true. They had some similarities. Including injuries although Eli did not get knocked out like Rodgers did.

And they both beat icky teams in the big one too.

Altho 10 regular season wins (or any double digit number) does sound a tad better then 9. Don't think you can get too picky though when you win the big one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true. They had some similarities. Including injuries although Eli did not get knocked out like Rodgers did.

And they both beat icky teams in the big one too.

Altho 10 regular season wins (or any double digit number) does sound a tad better then 9. Don't think you can get too picky though when you win the big one.

You go 9-7 with a good team if that team is loaded with injuries, which the Giants were before the season even started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rams got a king's ransom for the second pick. (Three firsts and a second). Think of what the Colts could have gotten for the first pick. Wouldn't be easier to rebuild with 5 first round picks and 4 second round picks in the next three years? Trust me, Andrew Luck will not be the last great QB to play football.

Will you promise not to post again when Luck blows up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or he could be like JIm Kelly of the Bills of the 80s and get the team to the SB and lose not once but 4 times. Would be a good pick huh.

I thought my jokes were bad. Do you mean Luck could be a choke artist? I seriously doubt it, he's a preparation freak like PM but like others have said, Jim Kelly wasn't bad.

What if we kept Manning and traded the pick for a huge ransom and the Colts w/Manning don't win a Superbowl within 3 years? Manning retires on a stale note and the Colts struggle for 10 more years trying to find a franchise qb

The decision was only to guarantee that we would have a franchise QB, baring injury, for the next 10-15 years. The decision wasn't to make sure we would go to the SB necessarily, because 1 player can't guarantee that. There's a higher probability for future championships by going young. When expensive vets are cut,they also cut the "warm body" players that were needed to make the cap work. Now the team can have better players overall, who don't serve as weak spots for opponents to exploit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not angry with any one person here. I'm angry at the situation and I blame no one. The facts are, Manning had to go for one reason only.....Andrew Luck. Manning would've been retained with appropriate effort from Irsay if it were not for Andrew Luck. We wouldn't have axed Manning, nor would Manning have decided to leave, if this Luck kid weren't available to us.

Direct your anger at the team for not winning more games last season. Our on field futility coupled with Peyton's uncertain health status put us in this situation. Personally, I think we are fortunate to have this Luck kid available to us given the situation we find ourselves in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

originally, I thought we should trade the pick.

Then i came around and thought we should have a replacement for peyton.

Now I think we should have traded the pick and transitioned.

No reason to throw several seasons away to rebuild. Look at that pats.

I don't accept the notion that we're throwing away several seasons to rebuild. I believe that, if we do things the right way, we can be like the Falcons and be back in the playoffs relatively quickly.

I'd have rather had Manning for the remainder of his career, but I don't believe we're relegated to being cellar-dwellers for any considerable period of time just because we let him go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't accept the notion that we're throwing away several seasons to rebuild. I believe that, if we do things the right way, we can be like the Falcons and be back in the playoffs relatively quickly.

I'd have rather had Manning for the remainder of his career, but I don't believe we're relegated to being cellar-dwellers for any considerable period of time just because we let him go.

Frankly I think this team can be rebuilt in two years. If we have two solid drafts and spend our free agent money wisely next year there is no reason in the world we can't be in the playoff hunt that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't accept the notion that we're throwing away several seasons to rebuild. I believe that, if we do things the right way, we can be like the Falcons and be back in the playoffs relatively quickly.

I'd have rather had Manning for the remainder of his career, but I don't believe we're relegated to being cellar-dwellers for any considerable period of time just because we let him go.

I hope you are right, but I would love to see some OL changes, a running game change and our entire D shuffled up.

Only the D has been shuffled so far. Lets see what happens.

I love Donald Brown, but hes gonna have to carry this team and I'm not sure thats gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I think this team can be rebuilt in two years. If we have two solid drafts and spend our free agent money wisely next year there is no reason in the world we can't be in the playoff hunt that year.

I agree, I believe we are going to have a ton of cap space next yr. and with the right additions there is no reason to believe we will not be right back on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I think this team can be rebuilt in two years. If we have two solid drafts and spend our free agent money wisely next year there is no reason in the world we can't be in the playoff hunt that year.

We just had a really good draft, it just was overshadowed by a really bad season and another slew of injuries. Add another good draft this year, and that's two.

Again, go back to the Falcons. They went from the Jim Mora era to the Bobby Petrino era (4-12, and Petrino defected after 13 games), then hired Thomas Dimitroff and Mike Smith, drafted Matt Ryan, and won 11 games. The Falcons were an absolute mess before Dimitroff and Smith came in. They had locker room issues, character issues, and talent issues. Joey Harrington was their quarterback. If you ask me, they were in worse shape than the Colts in 2011. They cut out the cancers, got the right quarterback in the draft, and were right back in the playoffs with a rookie GM and a rookie head coach. Dimitroff was only three years older than Grigson is, and came from the college scouting side of the building just the same.

I don't think that just because we had a bad year and got rid of some real cornerstone level players that we're relegated to last place for several years. Expecting us to be back in the playoffs this year is probably a bit overly optimistic, but it's not unprecedented by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you are right, but I would love to see some OL changes, a running game change and our entire D shuffled up.

Only the D has been shuffled so far. Lets see what happens.

I love Donald Brown, but hes gonna have to carry this team and I'm not sure thats gonna happen.

The o-line made serious strides in 2011, though not nearly enough. We'll see what happens this year. The defense should be drastically different, and that by definition is better than the pitiful excuse for a defense that we fielded last year.

I don't know why you think Donald Brown has to carry this team, and I highly doubt anyone in the building expects him to do so. However, I think he can be a significant part of our offense moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with a weak OL and no running game you have 3rd and longs which turn into 3 and outs.

I put the burden of production on Donald Brown before I put it on Andrew Luck.

It's not a given that we'll have a weak line or no running game. Let's see what the roster looks like in July, rather than determining that we have no players in March.

And if you're running on third and long, you're putting the game in the hands of your defense, not your running back. Running on third and long concedes the possession and you're playing for field position.

Link to comment
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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not really.   There's a theory that Ballard wants to draft an OL high because he said it's important to protect the QB, and Richardson was hurt last year. And the counter was that Richardson's injury/s probably aren't about the level of OL protection, and drafting an OL high wouldn't address that concern.
    • I'm thinking if we can trade to 8 or 9 and draft Odunze , we should do it if the price is reasonable. The value chart shows giving up P 15 and P 46 is the perfect number. Probably won't do it and I would think 2025 2nd for a 2024 4th added to the deal would make it work . That of coarse would depend on Atlanta or Chicago wanting to move to 15 . Obviously , as we all know , it takes 2 to make a trade.
    • I can too. And that will tell us everything we need to know about how the view him. It will tell us their feelings on the tight end room, and what direction they pick from there will tell us even more.    but if they take him at 15, we won’t know much about what might have happened, as they will be landing someone they had rated highly and fell to them. 
    • Glad that’s over…    if I wanted to argue about it, I would have responded far more in depth than pointing out how you were attempting to gaslight me. I did not. Meaning I was ending my part of whatever the argument was. You “putting a finality to it” and then listing bullet points tells me it was the argument you wanted all along, which makes sense why you brought Grigson up in the first place. Bait, hook, gaslight. Almost got me buddy. You are a funny guy, Doug 
    • Putting a finality on an argument you want to have.   There is a theory that Ballard won't draft a OL high because ARs injuries were not caused by a poor oline.  I felt it important to note that since Luck's major injuries were also not caused by his oline, Ballard could still want to improve it like he did in 2018 simply because AR is The Franchise. And its important to point that out because there has been a running (false) narrative for about 9 years that Luck's oline was the (main) reason for his injuries that kept him out of games.  The (false) narrative is based upon, IMO, a detest of Grigson, and not reality about the facts (or strong rumors) behind the kidney laceration and snowboarding shoulder. Therefore, mentioning Grigson and the (false) narrative was germain to the point about Ballard possibly drafting Oline high this draft to protect AR. Mentioning Grigson shouldn't trigger a CB vs RG discussion, unless people reading it are gaslighted by their own reading lens.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...