Cuttlery posted:

---

The Colts either need to trade the pick or trade Manning. They also wont take Griffin, he is not the right type of QB for the system they have in place.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

The Colts are more than a rookie QB away from anything. Luck or Manning is worth a fortune in picks and neither of them are a sure thing anymore.

---

notmforce2k posted:

---

Ok, Aaron Rodgers was not a #1 overall pick. People are bringing up that point a lot nowadays with the Colts/Luck discussion but it's in no way equitable. You do not sit #1 overall picks on the bench.

---

Brandun posted:

---

What a class organization

at least the Rams tried today


I would need a shower if I was a Colts fan




I hope the Colts don't parlay the pick into a bunch of picks, and take Luck, and he is an absolute bust

I will laugh my ass off until my jaw hurts so much I can't laugh anymore

---

evolrider2 posted:

---

The Colts have two choices:

1. Trade the pick and get the chance to fill a lot of holes over the next couple of years with the haul of picks they would receive in return. This carries two big risks:

A. Peyton Manning does not recover from surgery and they are still without a quarterback.
B. They do not make good choices with the picks they net in return for the trade and they are left with no QB and no other significant return for the trade. It would look even worse if Luck turned out to be as good a QB as advertised.

2. Draft Luck WITH the expectation that he is going to sit on the bench for awhile. In this scenario there are a few different possible outcomes:

A. Peyton Manning comes back healthy enough in training camp to play. In this case he will be the starting QB for the Colts. No other team is going to trade for Manning without knowing if he can hold up for a whole season given the serious medical issues he is dealing with. If Manning makes it through the 2012 season and proves he can still be a viable QB option it opens up the chance of trading him to a team that is just a QB away from going to the next level prior to the 2013 season. Manning would probably welcome moving on because the Colts have so many other issues to deal with. That way the Colts get some return for Manning and do not have to go through a messy "divorce".

B. Manning comes back as the starter.....by some wild miracle leads the Colts deep into the playoffs and seriously delays the Colts blowing things up. This would mean Luck remains on the bench for 2-3 years while the Colts play for the moment rather than the future. (The chances of this are very small considering all the issues the Colts have on defense and that their offense around Manning is aging fast). As previous posters had said this scenario is not as bad as it would of been before the new collective bargaining agreement. If Luck has to sit on the bench for awhile he is not going to be getting the $12-$18 mill per season the #1 choice would have gotten under the old system. The Colts could afford to have both Manning and Luck on the roster.

C. Manning never fully recovers and Luck starts from Day 1.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

...he is not the right type of QB for the system they have in place.

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

...he is not the right type of QB for the system they have in place.

---

you mean the system of dont have a backup plan for your star?

as far as tanking it goes, well, i dont know...
BUT, that is one disgusting turnaround with the loss of their QB, even though he is one of the best ever.
if manning comes back next year and they are a sub .500 team, then we have an answer...if he comes back and they are one of the top seeds, i think something could be considered fishy.

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

not the right qb is even more argument for letting him sit a few years while they built a system in place.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

not the right qb is even more argument for letting him sit a few years while they built a system in place.

---

Or they keep their star QB, trade the pick for a pile of extra picks, have that system in place by next years draft, then draft or trade for another QB. In the mean time they can get a backup veteran, Kyle Orton, Matt Flynn, McNabb, etc etc...

It would be beyond stupid for them to keep both Manning and Luck, all they'd be doing is delaying their rebuilding to a snails pace.

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

Indianapolis Colts: Andrew Luck, QB, Stanford
The Colts better not mess this up. They got their one victory out of the way. They even beat Houston. If they slay Jacksonville, they'll really screw themselves out of the Suck for Luck sweepstakes.

If the Colts hang on to the top spot, Andrew Luck will be the pick, but they're either going to have to trade him or deal Peyton Manning. Archie Manning told the media that his son won't want to play with Luck, but that's not even the major point. It's that Manning is owed a $28 million bonus prior to next season, so it won't be financially feasible to have both quarterbacks, especially if Manning isn't 100 percent.

Unless Manning is completely healthy, I think the Colts will move Manning and go with Luck, much like the Packers did a few years ago when they transitioned from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers. It'll be weird to see Manning in a different jersey, but you could have said the same thing about Favre and Joe Montana. Like Montana, Manning could go to Kansas City. Washington, San Francisco and Miami are other possible landing spots.

If Manning is healthy, however, there's some chatter that Jim Irsay may find some way to keep both signal-callers on his roster. I don't know how he'll be able to allocate his money elsewhere, but I guess that's something he'll have to figure out.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2012.php

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

not the right qb is even more argument for letting him sit a few years while they built a system in place.

---

Or they keep their star QB, trade the pick for a pile of extra picks, have that system in place by next years draft, then draft or trade for another QB. In the mean time they can get a backup veteran, Kyle Orton, Matt Flynn, McNabb, etc etc...

It would be beyond stupid for them to keep both Manning and Luck, all they'd be doing is delaying their rebuilding to a snails pace.

---

no it doesnt its exactly what green bay did with favre /rodgers.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

wow the football ignorance is this thread is astounding.

you build from the middle out. what I mean is you want a good player at safety, middle linebacker,center, qb, and running back.

out of those positions the qb is the most important position on the field

the qb is the only position that touches the ball offensively every play(besides the center but he cant advance the ball).

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

wow the football ignorance is this thread is astounding.

you build from the middle out. what I mean is you want a good player at safety, middle linebacker,center, qb, and running back.

out of those positions the qb is the most important position on the field

the qb is the only position that touches the ball offensively every play(besides the center but he cant advance the ball).

---

You dont have a clue. For one Right Tackle is your premium line position. Secondly RB's are pretty much a dime a dozen aside from a few in the NFL these days, almost every team platoons RB's now. Third I'd rather have decent corners than a decent safety. Either way an Unproven QB would be the least of my worries especially if I could address all of those other skill positions at once instead of spreading it out over years while my rookie QB who may or may not bust struggles because there are no other pieces.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

its a fact the quarterback is the single most important player on the field.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

its a fact the quarterback is the single most important player on the field.

---

Agreed, which is why you'd be a complete retard to throw one out there with nothing around him.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

if you have a crappy qb how many good players are going to want to sign with your team?

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

if you have a crappy qb how many good players are going to want to sign with your team?

---

If you trade the first pick in the draft and have a whole pile of other picks how does that matter again? Do you even watch football? This is very strange.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Taking any player in the first round is a gamble. Taking 3 or 4 players in the first couple rounds is far less of a gamble that some of them are going to pan out. You cant be serious though.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Taking any player in the first round is a gamble. Taking 3 or 4 players in the first couple rounds is far less of a gamble that some of them are going to pan out. You cant be serious though.

---

this is how the draft works from a gm's point of view.

1st round players are expected to contribute to the team in the first season
2nd round players expected to contribute on special teams
3rd round and below are all developmental players they are projects that have potential.

*there are diamonds in the rough and some teams have a good scouting departments that find these gems.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Taking any player in the first round is a gamble. Taking 3 or 4 players in the first couple rounds is far less of a gamble that some of them are going to pan out. You cant be serious though.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Taking any player in the first round is a gamble. Taking 3 or 4 players in the first couple rounds is far less of a gamble that some of them are going to pan out. You cant be serious though.

---

this is how the draft works from a gm's point of view.

1st round players are expected to contribute to the team in the first season
2nd round players expected to contribute on special teams
3rd round and below are all developmental players they are projects that have potential.

*there are diamonds in the rough and some teams have a good scouting departments that find these gems.

---

You are contradicting yourself now so I know you arent being serious.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

how am I contradicting my self?
this is all stuff I hear the talking heads on nfl network talk about day in and day out.
lets see on their staff they have a couple head coaches and a few former superstar players that have no idea wtf they are talking about.

really now Cutt all I am doing is regurgitating what they said.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

how am I contradicting my self?
this is all stuff I hear the talking heads on nfl network talk about day in and day out.
lets see on their staff they have a couple head coaches and a few former superstar players that have no idea wtf they are talking about.

really now Cutt all I am doing is regurgitating what they said.

---

If you are expecting all your first rounders to contribute immediately you obviously take the 3 you get by trading the first pick, especially since as you said earlier you cant cut Manning because YOU said it would drive free agents from Indy. You also cannot keep Manning and Luck if you are your mythical GM because you expect your first round pick to contribute, if you have both they both cant play.

You are contradicting yourself in every other post you make.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

contribute and start to two different things completely. and with the new rookie salary cap it limits rookies to an average of about 5 mill per year and that is for the #1 pick. contributing for Luck or RG3 is being that back up behind Manning, as the backup(average salary for back up qb's in the nfl is 3 million per season). when Manning retires or gets injured, he is there ready to take over.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

contribute and start to two different things completely. and with the new rookie salary cap it limits rookies to an average of about 5 mill per year and that is for the #1 pick. contributing for Luck or RG3 is being that back up behind Manning, as the backup(average salary for back up qb's in the nfl is 3 million per season). when Manning retires or gets injured, he is there ready to take over.

---

And if Manning cant play or Luck sucks? Even if he doesnt suck, Indy isnt any good, they need LOTS of help. Taking a player that cant do anything to help right now is stupid.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

that is why they have a rookie salary cap now, you no longer have to mortgage a teams future on first round bust. rebuilding a team is not a single season project

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Indys stats for 2011 season

points per game 15.2 4th worst
yards per game 286.8 3rd worst
yards per play 4.8 4th worst
first downs per game 16.1 2nd worst
3rd down percentage 35% 10th worst
turnovers per game -12 6th worst.
time of possession per game 26:13 worst in the NFL

all stats that are effected by qb play

on the flip side
over all defense they are ranked 25th

guess who is the worst in overall defense the Packers.

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Indys stats for 2011 season

points per game 15.2 4th worst
yards per game 286.8 3rd worst
yards per play 4.8 4th worst
first downs per game 16.1 2nd worst
3rd down percentage 35% 10th worst
turnovers per game -12 6th worst.
time of possession per game 26:13 worst in the NFL

all stats that are effected by qb play

on the flip side
over all defense they are ranked 25th

guess who is the worst in overall defense the Packers.

---

Seriously you cannot be this football stupid. Do you know why Green Bay is worst in football defense?

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

because they suck

---

Cuttlery posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

because they suck

---

Well they arent great, but they certainly dont suck that bad. Maybe you are that football stupid.

---