Andrew Luck: Not out of reach?

by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 7, 2011 7:06 PM EST

The assumption has been that the price is going to be too high for Luck, but I've been thinking and I am not sure that is right. Hear me out. Latest reports are that Luck and Peyton may not want to play together. So Luck (or Peyton I guess) may pull some kind of power play. Now, who was the last guy to pull a power play like this -- it was only the last "can't miss" QB to come out -- Eli Manning (though I'd argue he owed a lot of his can't-missness to his name). The similarities between this year and that year are pretty high.

There were at least two other marquee QBs to be taken in the early first round -- Rivers and Big Ben (with Ben being more highly touted, though he went later) along with a cusp guy, JP Losman, and another guy, Matt Schaub, who fell later than expected. Compare to this year, and you have Barkley, RGIII, Landry and I think a couple other cusp guys.

Now, what did the Giants give up for Eli, the Andrew Luck of 2004? Not a crazy amount. The 4th pick in the draft for Rivers, their 3rd round pick and their 1st and 5th the next year. High yes -- but outrageous? No way.

Assume we pick around 5th or 6th. And assume also that Luck is a little more highly sought-after than Eli (true, but not a ton more). If we gave up our 5th or 6th pick along with our Atlanta pick and a 3rd rounder, that is a way better ransom than what the San Diego got for Eli.

Also, this move makes sense for the Colts. Assuming Peyton has 3 more years in him, why not draft a Barkley with our pick, and have him sit and learn from the master. You then also get a late first rounder to further beef up your roster and a 3rd rounder. You are priming yourself to win now and setting yourself up for the future. I don't think the Colts would rule this out, and I don't think they should. Especially if Luck and Peyton make it known that they'd rather not play together.

Thoughts? I'd do this deal in a heartbeat. We got the picks to pull this off.

This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.

Tweet Comment 95 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I dont get the Luck infatuation. I mean I do, we are starved for a QB here, but havent we learned that a QB without support looks like shit? If Luck were to step in where Colt is now, do you really think he would be doing better?

Calvin - "I wonder where we go when we die?"
Hobbes - "...Pittsburgh?"
Calvin - "You mean if we're good or if we're bad?"

by BigDawgGottaEat on Dec 7, 2011 7:57 PM EST reply actions

I’d take RG3 with another two first rounders or whatever the cost was over just Luck.

"It is unlikely that anyone has ever read Nietzsche or Derrida and has been inspired to open a soup kitchen"

by troy145 on Dec 7, 2011 9:12 PM EST up reply actions

RG3 reminds me of a stronger Colt McCoy. I don’t think he will be there when we pick, but if he is, I think we should pass. Other needs should be priority (like WR, LB).

"The rush of battle is a potent and almost lethal addiction, for war is a drug."

by dirtyjoe on Dec 10, 2011 11:13 PM EST up reply actions

As much as we need talent those positions, I don’t think they take priority over QB.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 11, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

They don’t, the question is just “how much better than Colt is he” and “does that make him a franchise QB with pro bowl potential” when you are looking at a QB. For luck, I’d give up the whole draft. For RGIII specifically, is it worth it?

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Dec 11, 2011 10:58 PM EST up reply actions

You never know how the draft is gonna work out in the end. But as of now, it looks like quite a few of the teams at the top of the draft are actually not in need of a QB, which is strange. Carolina, Minn., Philly, Jax, St. Louis are all set at QB. I guess its possible that Jax has already given up on Gabbert? So, really, I see Indy, Washington and Miami in the top part of the draft that wold be thinking QB.

by RyanBr on Dec 11, 2011 11:16 PM EST up reply actions

I’ll take any QB with our first pick. I wouldn’t give up the whole draft for any of the QBs, but I’ll take who’s ever left at where we are picking.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 11, 2011 11:25 PM EST up reply actions

Assuming our scouts think enough of them. We’d hope they know more than we do.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 11, 2011 11:25 PM EST up reply actions

Yea, we would. But scouts can also stop seeing the forest and focus on trees. Seriously, take a step back and ask yourself if Barkley or Jones is so much better than Colt that it’s worth passing up Blackmon or a guy like Claiborne or Barron who could give us 3 young starters in the secondary? Or Quinton Coples to shore up the line? Or trading down and getting another 1st round pick next year?

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Dec 12, 2011 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Fair point. I especially agree on Blackmon, I don’t really have a board, but if I did, Blackmon is second only to Luck. Personally, I’d take Barkley or Jones over trading down. Some of those other guys, it really can’t say. If anyone of them turned out to be great, obviously it would have been worth it.

My biggest thing with wanting a QB is having some sort of ~~false~~ hope for this offense going forward, something, anything, to cling too. I’d like to apply the blind squirrel thing again for the 100th time, but in this case, the Cleveland Browns are actually living proof that it doesn’t work whatsoever for QBs.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 13, 2011 12:24 AM EST up reply actions

A new QB would be exciting and could inspire hope in the team. A Tebowesque hope at the worst. There is something intangible about a franchise QB and what he brings.

I would love to be breaking down why our offense is so good instead of just saying “we just kinda suck”

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Dec 13, 2011 11:40 PM EST up reply actions

If Luck were to step in where Colt is now, do you really think he would be doing better?

Yes, easily.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 7, 2011 9:40 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

It may take an adjustment year but the long term potential is astronomical.

Also, to BigDawg, we have a much better supporting cast (read O Line) than Tim Couch or any other QB has had. Receiver upgrades are overrated simply because of AJ Green has done but there’s nobody like AJ Green available to draft or get in FA

by HenryDawg on Dec 10, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions

I think Blackmon will be better than Green.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 11, 2011 8:18 AM EST up reply actions

You aren’t the only person I’ve heard say this. Also before Blackmon committed to another year wasn’t he mocked up ahead of Green?

Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by North Coast Flea on Dec 11, 2011 12:57 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t know about that, but I’m pretty sure he was ahead of Julio Jones.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 11, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

OK so it seemed my memory is shoddy, in the 5 minutes or so that I looked I found about four mocks from before he committed. He went anywhere from 6-21, always in the first, and always behind Green. The one that had him going 6th (to us) had Green going #1 overall to Carolina. Made me laugh pretty hard.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by North Coast Flea on Dec 11, 2011 1:33 PM EST up reply actions

nope. Blackmon was always mocked third

by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 11, 2011 2:00 PM EST up reply actions

False.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by North Coast Flea on Dec 11, 2011 5:36 PM EST up reply actions

No, but starting to pass Julio.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Dec 11, 2011 10:59 PM EST up reply actions

Absolutely

by Karen Marie on Dec 14, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions

Colts are going to trade Manning and draft Luck.

by joeee on Dec 7, 2011 8:05 PM EST reply actions

They can’t trade Manning; his contract is trade-prohibitive in that it guarantees an outrageous amount ($26 million I think) at the beginning of the 2012 league year. No team is going to go for that. They’d have to cut him.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion

by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 7, 2011 8:18 PM EST up reply actions

More details on why the Colts cannot possibly trade Peyton in the next two years — they will kill their cap. If they decide to go in a different direction, they have to cut him.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion

by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 7, 2011 8:29 PM EST up reply actions

It’s possible if Manning agrees to shift the timing of some of his bonuses.

I think Manning will do what is best not only for himself, but also the Colts.

I said it before, I think he shifts his bonus money timeline back, and he is traded to the Jets.

by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 7, 2011 9:04 PM EST up reply actions

I think Manning will do what is best not only for himself, but also the Colts.

Why do you think this? If the rumors are true that he is against the team drafting Luck, then obviously the above is not true. Unless you mean only in specific situations.

Mangini apologist by default.

I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.

by Villeslgr on Dec 8, 2011 7:38 AM EST up reply actions

Because I think he has some loyalty to the Colts. He did have some clauses built into his contract if he could no longer play, in which the Colts wouldn’t have been totally screwed.

Don’t get me wrong, Peyton is going to be a starting QB, where he wants to be next season. But I think he will give the Colts every chance to get something in return for him.

by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 8, 2011 5:02 PM EST up reply actions

No way Manning gives a crap about what’s best for the Colts. ESPECIALLY when he has Archie in the background influencing his decisions.

XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.

by SpecialBrownie on Dec 8, 2011 9:39 AM EST up reply actions

After reading a few articles, I believe this could very well be what will happen.

by OldTimeDawg on Dec 8, 2011 11:30 AM EST up reply actions

Huh, didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.

by joeee on Dec 8, 2011 12:14 AM EST up reply actions

Plus, why trade Manning if you think he is healthy. You have a guaranteed top-notch QB for another couple of years — drafting Luck is no guarantee. It makes more sense to get a grab-bag of picks, take another QB like Barkley to train under Manning as the QBOTF and make a big run at the Super Bowl by acquiring other players with your own picks and with the picks you got for Luck.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion

by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 7, 2011 8:20 PM EST up reply actions

With Manning’s HUGE knowledge of football and the QB position, the Colts are better off trading and taking Barkley or RG3 and have him sit behind Manning until he retires. I think Peyton Manning can turn either of those to into a QB equal or better than Luck in the long run.

by macdowellm03 on Dec 7, 2011 8:21 PM EST reply actions

Oh and as for us, we have way too many needs to throw picks at Luck.

by macdowellm03 on Dec 7, 2011 8:24 PM EST up reply actions

False. If you can get Andrew Luck out of the first round of the 2011 draft (ie by using both of our picks on him), you take him. We are never going to get anywhere without a top-knotch QB. Giving up a 2nd or 3rd round pick in addition is still worth it. We need a QB.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion

by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 7, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions

Picture this though: “Luck drops back, throws to the endzone TOUCH… oh no Little drops the pass.” Or have the linebacker we don’t have not stop Ray Rice again. Or Luck can’t throw because he’s Couched because we didn’t have the pick to take an OL. I think it would take waaay more than our and Atlanta’s first rounder for him.

by macdowellm03 on Dec 7, 2011 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

Our OL is good right now — it’s ranked at the league average. The receivers need improvement, but they are better than what Luck has Stanford.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion

by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 7, 2011 8:35 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t think our OL is terrible, but calling them good is kind of generous. As for our receivers, there is no way I’m going to believe that they are better in the pros than the Stanford WR’s are in college.

by macdowellm03 on Dec 7, 2011 8:40 PM EST up reply actions

Stanford’s WR are below average by NCAA standards, as are the Browns by NFL standards. Not saying you can’t address the Browns WR need in Free Agency……there’s a GRIP of stud receivers that could be available this year. (Dwayne Bowe, Desean Jackson, Meachem, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Lloyd, etc)

Draft a stud qb (I’m thinking it’s Barkley, in the end….although i’d prefer RGIII) and grab a RT in the 2nd. DB/LB in the 4th/5th, and grab a WR in free agency.

"Mixed emotions. Rather see him hit PEDroia [with that pitch]. I don’t care if he is in the dugout"

by Gradysmanldy on Dec 8, 2011 8:54 AM EST up reply actions

Out of that group of free agents, I think I like Bowe the best. He’s been consistently good for five years now with a mediocre quarterback throwing him the ball. All those other guys either benefited from great QBs (Wayne), or systems (Lloyd), or are huge headcases (Jackson), or just aren’t that good (Meachem).

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 8, 2011 10:30 AM EST up reply actions

Didn’t Bowe pull a stunt last week though where he just refused to even throw his hands up on a ball and it was picked right over his shoulder?

XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.

by SpecialBrownie on Dec 8, 2011 10:40 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, he did. If he were perfect he wouldn’t be a free agent. That kind of behavior worries me, but I don’t think he’s as bad as Jackson, who has pretty much phoned it in all year. I also think people tend to underrate Bowe because Kansas City isn’t exactly a big market. If NFL GMs do the same thing, we could probably sign him for cheaper than Jackson as well.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 8, 2011 12:31 PM EST up reply actions

Andy Reid basically said the criticism of Jackson was bullshit and that he played hard. Do you think he was just saying that to try to get the heat off of his guy, or is it actually believable? Legit question.

Resident Tim Couch Apologist.

by Dawg Nuts on Dec 8, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions

Reid always deflects blame and most times puts it on himself.

by chitown browns fan on Dec 8, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions

I really don’t know how to take that. I don’t think the criticism is entirely baseless, the story definitely has legs, but maybe it isn’t as bad as I thought.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 8, 2011 3:56 PM EST up reply actions

He’s just trying to take the heat off of DeSean. Jackson has been jogging on deep routes where he probably won’t get the ball.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Dec 8, 2011 4:50 PM EST up reply actions

I think he was trying to cover for one of his best players.

by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 8, 2011 5:03 PM EST up reply actions

I think Stevie Johnson is a FA too.

by C.b.I on Dec 8, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions

I still think these stats do a better job of measuring physical blocking ability and not the actual play on the field.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Dec 8, 2011 4:49 PM EST up reply actions

"Luck drops back, throws to the endzone TOUCH… oh no Little drops the pass."

HAHAHAHA… I just had to create an account to say this was EXACTLY what i was thinking lol

by Chalmdeezy on Dec 12, 2011 10:12 PM EST up reply actions

You are absolutely insane in your thought process. You even contradicted yourself above when you admitted that drafting Luck is not a guarantee of performance. We would set ourselves back even further by giving up so much for a QB that you admit is not a guarantee.

by OldTimeDawg on Dec 8, 2011 11:36 AM EST up reply actions

Huh?!? I’ve never said Luck, or any NFL player or draftee, is a guarantee.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion

by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 8, 2011 12:50 PM EST up reply actions

We’ve given up 3rd rounders for much less.

by HenryDawg on Dec 10, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions

Without a Luck type QB we are going nowhere. The days of winning a Super Bowl with a Trent Dilfer are long gone…too many advantages given to the offense now.

by Karen Marie on Dec 14, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

I completely agree with “The DriveStillHurts”. If Manning is given a clean bill of health, then it makes more sense for the Colts to trade the #1 draft pick. The Browns have the ammunition to trade up in order to select Andrew luck. This is a QB driven league and the Browns need a QB. I’m sorry, but I have no faith in Colt mcCoy. He’s a nice kid and he tries really, really hard, but he will never be a franchise QB.

by BROWNSLIFTLOMBARDI on Dec 8, 2011 12:06 AM EST reply actions

Everything i’ve read says it’s highly unlikely that the Colts pass on Luck. Most likely scenarios i’ve seen are A) Manning restructures his contract, and gets moved to the Redskins/Dolphins/Jets or B) he gets drafted and sits for a year, and they re-evaluate the following year.

"Mixed emotions. Rather see him hit PEDroia [with that pitch]. I don’t care if he is in the dugout"

by Gradysmanldy on Dec 8, 2011 8:56 AM EST up reply actions

I think they go with option B, then trade Manning the year after that. The wild card in this is Andrew Luck. He could always pull an Eli Manning and just flat-out refuse to play for the Colts as long as Manning is there.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 8, 2011 10:32 AM EST up reply actions

*as long as Peyton is there, don’t want to mix my Mannings.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 8, 2011 10:32 AM EST up reply actions

Option A is more likely than option B from what I have read.

by OldTimeDawg on Dec 8, 2011 11:38 AM EST up reply actions

Really hoping Irsay and Caldwell get together and use their limited intelligence to do something stupid.

Which honestly, is very much in the realm of possibility.

XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.

by SpecialBrownie on Dec 8, 2011 11:53 AM EST reply actions

If it were Luck or Manning, the Colts would be insane not to pick Luck.
Personally, I don’t buy the idea that they can’t coexist on the Colts.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 8, 2011 11:58 AM EST reply actions

I can easily imagine a power struggle develop. Especially when fan opinions get involved. I think they have to do one or the other. Or it turns into a Dilfer situation. The veteran tells the kid to F off, because they’re shoving his replacement in his face. (Dilfer is still a huge asshole though)

XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.

by SpecialBrownie on Dec 8, 2011 12:06 PM EST up reply actions

I’m not saying it’s impossible. It’s just that I’m not ready to believe it all just from an Archie blurb.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 8, 2011 1:07 PM EST up reply actions

I think it’s pretty much up to Luck. If he’ll wait patiently like Aaron Rodgers, I think it can happen. If Peyton gets to play until he’s not good enough to do what he gets paid to do, how could he have problems with that?

I mean sure, another guy is sitting there waiting to take your job, but it’s the NFL. Someone is always sitting there waiting to take your job. And no one is going to play forever.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Dec 8, 2011 4:52 PM EST up reply actions

I think it could work for a year, but Manning’s contract is going to be too big too long for them to coexist for the length of it. They would already be into Luck’s RFA years before they really knew what they had with him.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 8, 2011 12:32 PM EST up reply actions

About a year is what I was thinking. As classy an act as Peyton Manning is, I actually think they’d part ways with him after that year, if he doesn’t become a player-coach. Manning has mentioned in interviews how long he expects to play and completely understood where Favre was coming from, which leads me to think that he’d rather be traded.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 8, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions

If it were Luck or Manning, the Colts would be insane not to pick Luck.

Yeah, but there are other options. RG3 and Barkley are both big-time prospects. Both could sit behind Manning and learn. And the Colts would get extra picks to compete now.

2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion

by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 8, 2011 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

Valid points. But, despite all that, I still can’t picture the Colts not taking Luck with the first overall. I think that he’s that good of a prospect.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 8, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

Even as he said you would still take him and get extra picks from someone else who takes Barkley. An Eli for Rivers swap type of thing. However I don’t remember Eli being that big of a deal like his brother or Luck and he certainly had more question marks.

by HenryDawg on Dec 10, 2011 5:46 PM EST up reply actions

Eli might not have bit quite as huge, but it’s really splitting hairs. Some people even said they thought he would be better than Peyton, which was ridiculous even then, but some people thought it.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 11, 2011 8:19 AM EST up reply actions

Green Bay showed how it should be done. The Colts look how GB took a QB despite need when they saw greatness, and they do the same. No trade.

Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen

by realmccoy on Dec 8, 2011 4:34 PM EST up reply actions

Like has been said before though, this is dependent on Luck wanting to sit for a few years. Rogers didn’t have that leverage, he slipped mightily on draft day. Luck will be the number one pick, that’s enough to force his way to a team where he gets the job a lot sooner.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 10, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

Not quite as much as a #1 overall used to have before the rookie wage scale though.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by North Coast Flea on Dec 10, 2011 3:27 PM EST up reply actions

That’s true, but a team can’t really afford to get nothing from the number one pick. Even if he signs, it’s very bad for your QBotF to be pissed at the organization from the start.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 11, 2011 8:20 AM EST up reply actions

Indeeb. GMs will still go on to get fired over bombing 1st overalls I’m sure.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by North Coast Flea on Dec 11, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t see a scenario where Indy let’s Luck go. I have nothing but respect for Peyton Manning, but even with a clear bill of health, how many years does he have left in the tank? 2-3? The guy isn’t getting any younger.

Bill Polian likely sees Luck as his life preserver, as right now it it looks like he’s squandered years of drafts and free agency building a one man team. Short of trading close to our whole draft, which makes Polian possibly look like a genius, he’ll take the safest bet of taking what the so-called experts think would be the key to ushering another 10+ years of success, which also makes him look like a genius. The clown can’t lose unless Luck washes out, in which case I would laugh with great relish.

by ouched on Dec 8, 2011 12:06 PM EST reply actions

Comparing Eli Manning and Andrew Luck as draft prospects is laughable at best. I don’t see any way the Colts pass up on Luck. I don’t even think they would take an entire draft, a la Ricky Williams trade

by RyanBr on Dec 8, 2011 4:52 PM EST reply actions

I agree 100%. I think we would be talking a minimum of both firsts this year and one next year – which prolly is about the same or greater value than our entire draft this year.

Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen

by realmccoy on Dec 8, 2011 5:11 PM EST up reply actions

At least that much to even sniff that first pick. ESPECIALLY with the new rookie salary cap.

by RyanBr on Dec 8, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions

I’ll third this. I think there is a 0% chance the Colts trade the pick.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 8, 2011 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t think the comparison is as prospects, but rather their situations. Luck doesn’t have to show up to Indy if he doesn’t want to.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 10, 2011 1:30 PM EST up reply actions

That would make him an Eli-level bitch though. I’m not sure if he cares, but it seems sense that incident, and probably before it, most high first round QBs have embraced the opportunity to play for who drafted them.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 10, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions

He can always go back to school for another year

by HenryDawg on Dec 10, 2011 7:04 PM EST up reply actions

Apparently Luck was recently quoted as saying he’s open to “coexisting” with Manning… (source)

Wherever Andrew Luck winds up in the NFL, the Stanford quarterback put to bed the notion that he’s unwilling to coexist with an established veteran passer.
.
“I’m sure it would be a positive,” Luck told The Baltimore Sun on Friday. “I’m sure it would all work out, whatever the situation is.”

That was my understanding.

by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 10, 2011 10:31 PM EST up reply actions

Then I don’t really see a scenario where he goes anywhere but Indianapolis.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Dec 11, 2011 8:21 AM EST up reply actions

The only scenario he goes anywhere else is the Colts win their final three games after losing in Baltimore today.

That was my understanding.

by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 11, 2011 9:25 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, this is why I didn’t buy into a random Archie Manning blurb.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 11, 2011 9:39 AM EST up reply actions

If you think about it, its not like Luck seems to be itching to get out there and be an NFL starter. Remember, he did make the choice to stay in school for another year even knowing he would have been the #1 pick last April

That was my understanding.

by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 11, 2011 9:48 AM EST up reply actions

I was just thinking this myself. If he was a diva, “I better be the day one starter” type of person, wouldn’t he have declared for the draft when he was the consensus #1 overall pick last year? Your stock doesn’t get any higher than that.

Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by North Coast Flea on Dec 11, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

Seeing all of this “there is no way anyone passes on luck blah blah blah”, it’s going to be funny if RGIII ends up surpassing luck in mocks after the combine.

by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 11, 2011 2:04 PM EST reply actions

Whoever #2 ends up being would love that.

Dawgs By Nature - Where winning, apparently, did some bad things.

by Simmsinns on Dec 11, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions

considering they’d actually be going off tape and performance evaluation, rather than the internet hype of people who’ve barely even seen Luck play, they just might actually feel that they’re missing out on the best QB player in the draft.

by The Licensed Pessimist on Dec 11, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions