It Was Idiotic Not To Trade The Pick.

[number28]

one more Super Bowl push which unfortunately Peyton couldn't lead,

Peyton is gonna win a SB this year. what are you talking about mate? he is also gonna win a few MVP's.

couldn't lead what?

[WoolMagnet]

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'd say that would be a good pick.

If a guy "gets" you to 4 SBs and you lose them all, its not the QBs fault.

PS, if no one remembers, for all the stats and wins in the regular season, Peyton certainly wasn't "exceptional" in the playoffs.

I think there is always a chance this new "team" with Luck could have better success than Peyton's teams did.

If the goal is to win Super Bowls.

Time will tell.

I'll sure miss P-Money tho.

[Corndog]

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.

Yeah there's a good game plan, following the Ram's lead. The Rams have been terrible for quite a while now, the Colts were the worst team in the league for one year. Also the Rams have their franchise QB, the Colts don't even have a QB. I say take the safe route here, Luck will not be the last great QB to play, but in this draft he is the safest bet. Another point, the Colts have 9 draft picks this year and get to pick at the beginning of each round( which is like what they used to draft in the round before), they are okay.

[Superman]

3rd and longs are obvious passing situations....Thus why they become 3 and outs.

I was trying to say that its in Donalds hands to make 1st or 2nd down productive so we don't have 3rd and longs.

You'll often see a team run on third and long, punt, and put their defense on the field with good field position. Especially when you have a limited offense.

I get what you're saying about the running game being more important now, but to me, the burden is on the offensive line, not the backs. The line hasn't been consistent since 2007, on any down. We did well converting short yardage in 2009, but other than that, the line play has been very subpar. So whether it's DB, or Carter, or any other back we use next season, the line play has to be better, and then we can start talking about the backs and whether they're taking advantage of opportunities.

I also think having a mobile quarterback will give us some options on any down that we haven't really had with Manning. Luck (or RGIII) have to be respected as running threats, and I hope Arians plugs some bootlegs into the gameplan to take advantage of the new quarterback's athleticism.

[gacker65]

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.

Luck can already wear that name. Lost PAC 12 title 2 years in a row to Oregon. Lost Fiesta Bowl ( do not blame kicker, Luck had his shot to win it and did not). I would rather we draft RG3 than Luck.

[gacker65]

I'd say that would be a good pick.

If a guy "gets" you to 4 SBs and you lose them all, its not the QBs fault.

PS, if no one remembers, for all the stats and wins in the regular season, Peyton certainly wasn't "exceptional" in the playoffs.

I think there is always a chance this new "team" with Luck could have better success than Peyton's teams did.

If the goal is to win Super Bowls.

Time will tell.

I'll sure miss P-Money tho.

Not many young people remember Fran Tarkington. Not very many remember Jim Kelly. Both were good QBs, but could not win a SB with mutiple tries. What I was expressing was, that though Kelly was a good QB, he could not win the SB and if Luck is like that, then was the draft choice wasted.

[Superman]

Luck can already wear that name. Lost PAC 12 title 2 years in a row to Oregon. Lost Fiesta Bowl ( do not blame kicker, Luck had his shot to win it and did not). I would rather we draft RG3 than Luck.

Right, because RGIII really lit it up in the Alamo Bowl...

[Superman]

Not many young people remember Fran Tarkington. Not very many remember Jim Kelly. Both were good QBs, but could not win a SB with mutiple tries. What I was expressing was, that though Kelly was a good QB, he could not win the SB and if Luck is like that, then was the draft choice wasted.

The answer is NO, emphatically.

Before 1997 and 1998, Jim Kelly and John Elway are pretty much the same guy. Elway's two championships obviously set him apart, but before that, three pretty bad losses, and several bad playoff losses. Getting the Super Bowl four years in a row is a really significant accomplishment. Kelly got knocked out of one of those games with an injury. Another one, the kicker blew the game on a very makeable kick. Maybe you dock rep points for losing them, especially the bad losses, but I don't put as much stock in one game out of a couple hundred as other people do. I think a career is made up of more than a game or two at the end of the season.

So if we get to four Super Bowls in a row with Luck, and lose all four of them, that's not a wasted pick. One player doesn't win the Super Bowl on his own. I'd say that the fact that he could quarterback a team to the Super Bowl four years in a row is more impressive than winning those four games, and I would look at the specifics of each game to see why the team lost. If it was because the quarterback wilted, then I'd blame the quarterback for the loss, but that doesn't undo all the good contributions from the quarterback through the course of the season.