If Colts win Suck For Luck would Luck stay in school? (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

There's nothing inherently attractive about playing for the Colts. There is some evidence this season that they are a lesser-talented team carried to competitiveness on the back of their HOF QB. Besides, as Ramblin Wreck noted, you have to live in Indianapolis.

However, I think he comes out regardless of who gets the rights to draft him.

I'd rather be in Miami, but Indy isn't a bad consolation.

 

[FUBAR]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

With the new rookie wage structure, a #1 overall rookie QB would be as cheap as a veteran backup. Cam Newton got $22 million over 4 years; Tarvaris Jackson got $8 million over 2 years, Hasselbeck got $20 million over 3 years. $5-6 million/year is not going to break the bank, and the Colts are not going to be satisfied that a Painter-level backup will be good enough for them, not when Manning's ability to complete an NFL season is in serious question.Luck isn't a whiny puke like the last overhyped QB out of Stanford to be drafted by the Colts; he'll play where he's drafted.

It would be funny if he pulled an Eli.

 

[Sinn Fein]

What if he goes back to school and then the Packers somehow end up with the 2013 #1 pick?A better solution would be to hold out and then force the Colts to trade him to the Broncos.

Can he play baseball?

 

[Shutout]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

Maybe they keep Manning for a year, but again, what's the point? Just like with the Eagles trading Kolb, I think you have to make a decision and go with it. In the NFL, you can't afford to have such a valuable commodity at backup QB.

The question of what would Manning go for in trade is interesting. I assume a win now team (Jets?) would be willing to pony up at least two first rounders, but that's only if Manning gets a clean bill of health.

Ryan Leaf. There is something to be said about bringing a QB along the right way. Years ago, people were in a virtual toss up between Manning and Leaf as to which would be a better QB. So, to go back to the original question for a sec, that in itself should be a reason that Luck might trust that the INDY organization knows how to do it right and he might want to go there.Back to the reply: As rookie contracts got out of control, teams were tossing their highly-paid rookie QBs into the mix early and A LOT of them that were highly touted coming out of colege got destroyed and were never the players everyone thought they would be. But back in the day, it was commonplace for teams to bring QBS around slowly. Now with the new rules, teams will not have absurd money tied up in top 5 QBS and will likely be more willing to bring them along a bit slower and that can be a good thing for players not being tossed into the fire. So instead of seeing it as a wasted year, look at it as more of an investment. I would rather see a guy wait until he was ~24 before being a strater than seeing him as a 27 year old that was on his 2nd or third team, had been beaten and sacked and injured and had become a journeyman backup.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

With the new rookie wage structure, a #1 overall rookie QB would be as cheap as a veteran backup. Cam Newton got $22 million over 4 years; Tarvaris Jackson got $8 million over 2 years, Hasselbeck got $20 million over 3 years. $5-6 million/year is not going to break the bank, and the Colts are not going to be satisfied that a Painter-level backup will be good enough for them, not when Manning's ability to complete an NFL season is in serious question.Luck isn't a whiny puke like the last overhyped QB out of Stanford to be drafted by the Colts; he'll play where he's drafted.

The backup QB in this case would be Manning.

 

[CalBear]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

With the new rookie wage structure, a #1 overall rookie QB would be as cheap as a veteran backup. Cam Newton got $22 million over 4 years; Tarvaris Jackson got $8 million over 2 years, Hasselbeck got $20 million over 3 years. $5-6 million/year is not going to break the bank, and the Colts are not going to be satisfied that a Painter-level backup will be good enough for them, not when Manning's ability to complete an NFL season is in serious question.Luck isn't a whiny puke like the last overhyped QB out of Stanford to be drafted by the Colts; he'll play where he's drafted.

The backup QB in this case would be Manning.

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

Maybe they keep Manning for a year, but again, what's the point? Just like with the Eagles trading Kolb, I think you have to make a decision and go with it. In the NFL, you can't afford to have such a valuable commodity at backup QB.

The question of what would Manning go for in trade is interesting. I assume a win now team (Jets?) would be willing to pony up at least two first rounders, but that's only if Manning gets a clean bill of health.

Ryan Leaf. There is something to be said about bringing a QB along the right way. Years ago, people were in a virtual toss up between Manning and Leaf as to which would be a better QB. So, to go back to the original question for a sec, that in itself should be a reason that Luck might trust that the INDY organization knows how to do it right and he might want to go there.Back to the reply: As rookie contracts got out of control, teams were tossing their highly-paid rookie QBs into the mix early and A LOT of them that were highly touted coming out of colege got destroyed and were never the players everyone thought they would be. But back in the day, it was commonplace for teams to bring QBS around slowly. Now with the new rules, teams will not have absurd money tied up in top 5 QBS and will likely be more willing to bring them along a bit slower and that can be a good thing for players not being tossed into the fire. So instead of seeing it as a wasted year, look at it as more of an investment. I would rather see a guy wait until he was ~24 before being a strater than seeing him as a 27 year old that was on his 2nd or third team, had been beaten and sacked and injured and had become a journeyman backup.

Here's the problem.You sit the guy on the bench for two years, and then you only have one year to evaluate him. If he stinks in year 4, you pretty much have to cut him, as I believe the deals are structured as 4-year deals with club options for year 5, but the salary is pretty high in year 5. If he's great, that gives you two years, but you don't want him entering his final year without his contract, because then he's going to break the bank. Ideally, you extend him with two years left on his deal, which is still just after only one year of play.

I don't think anyone sits a QB for two full years anymore.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

With the new rookie wage structure, a #1 overall rookie QB would be as cheap as a veteran backup. Cam Newton got $22 million over 4 years; Tarvaris Jackson got $8 million over 2 years, Hasselbeck got $20 million over 3 years. $5-6 million/year is not going to break the bank, and the Colts are not going to be satisfied that a Painter-level backup will be good enough for them, not when Manning's ability to complete an NFL season is in serious question.Luck isn't a whiny puke like the last overhyped QB out of Stanford to be drafted by the Colts; he'll play where he's drafted.

The backup QB in this case would be Manning.

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

 

[pollardsvision]

... or spend a year or two learning from one of the best QBs of all time...

re: Rodgers/Favre situation.

This...and it's not close. In fact, this would be a scenario most young QBs would HOPE to have happen. He'd rather go...? To the Dolphins and pcik the brain of Chad Henne? If I'm Luck, I'd be praying every day that Indy goes 0-16.

Peyton Manning disagrees

I don't think it matters as much to Luck where he goes as we are speculating. Positives and negatives with every situation. Go to a Miami, Denver, instant starter, new face of franchise.... but also everyone calling you "the next marino", "the next elway" and the constant comparisons. Or go to a team like Indy where you may or may not start for the first X number of years, but you develop and enter a really good situation when you do start (ala rodgers). Obviously his dream scenario is for san fran to trade for that pick, automatic starter on a division winning team. But that doesn't seem all that likely. Or maybe the vikings or seahawks get that top pick and then you're also put in a pretty decent situation to succeed. Tough to say what the kid wants.

Good thing he wouldn't have to worry about that sort of thing in Indy. (Not to mention your dream scenario of SF)

And it wouldn't be very much like Rodgers. The Colts are a bad team. The Packers were a pretty good team. It's unlikely that Manning's exit will resemble Favre's either, so Luck might not have the benefit of being a sympathetic figure like Rodgers was.

Going to the Colts means Luck gets to be in a high pressure situation (running Manning out of town, then following him), surrounded by a bad team.

If I were Luck, Indy would be one of the last places I'd want to go (not that I think he would or should go back to school over it).

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

There's nothing inherently attractive about playing for the Colts. There is some evidence this season that they are a lesser-talented team carried to competitiveness on the back of their HOF QB. Besides, as Ramblin Wreck noted, you have to live in Indianapolis. However, I think he comes out regardless of who gets the rights to draft him.

Wrong. The Colts are considered a well run franchise and has a very good owner and GM. The Colts are considered one of the better franchises in the league.

Jim Irsay is a fruitcake who won the birth lottery. There doesn't appear to be much talent there beyond the injured QB. And Hoosiers are fat.

You're full of you know what.

 

[FUBAR]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

With the new rookie wage structure, a #1 overall rookie QB would be as cheap as a veteran backup. Cam Newton got $22 million over 4 years; Tarvaris Jackson got $8 million over 2 years, Hasselbeck got $20 million over 3 years. $5-6 million/year is not going to break the bank, and the Colts are not going to be satisfied that a Painter-level backup will be good enough for them, not when Manning's ability to complete an NFL season is in serious question.Luck isn't a whiny puke like the last overhyped QB out of Stanford to be drafted by the Colts; he'll play where he's drafted.

The backup QB in this case would be Manning.

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

Chase, I respect your acumen but you're off your rocker if you don't think a quality backup QB can be valuable.

 

[FUBAR]

... or spend a year or two learning from one of the best QBs of all time...

re: Rodgers/Favre situation.

This...and it's not close. In fact, this would be a scenario most young QBs would HOPE to have happen. He'd rather go...? To the Dolphins and pcik the brain of Chad Henne? If I'm Luck, I'd be praying every day that Indy goes 0-16.

Peyton Manning disagrees

I don't think it matters as much to Luck where he goes as we are speculating. Positives and negatives with every situation. Go to a Miami, Denver, instant starter, new face of franchise.... but also everyone calling you "the next marino", "the next elway" and the constant comparisons. Or go to a team like Indy where you may or may not start for the first X number of years, but you develop and enter a really good situation when you do start (ala rodgers). Obviously his dream scenario is for san fran to trade for that pick, automatic starter on a division winning team. But that doesn't seem all that likely. Or maybe the vikings or seahawks get that top pick and then you're also put in a pretty decent situation to succeed. Tough to say what the kid wants.

Good thing he wouldn't have to worry about that sort of thing in Indy. (Not to mention your dream scenario of SF)

And it wouldn't be very much like Rodgers. The Colts are a bad team. The Packers were a pretty good team. It's unlikely that Manning's exit will resemble Favre's either, so Luck might not have the benefit of being a sympathetic figure like Rodgers was.

Going to the Colts means Luck gets to be in a high pressure situation (running Manning out of town, then following him), surrounded by a bad team.

If I were Luck, Indy would be one of the last places I'd want to go (not that I think he would or should go back to school over it).

Getting ahead of yourself here? He's not chasing Peyton out of town. And it's hard to tell if the Packers would be a good team without Rodgers.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

Maybe they keep Manning for a year, but again, what's the point? Just like with the Eagles trading Kolb, I think you have to make a decision and go with it. In the NFL, you can't afford to have such a valuable commodity at backup QB.

The question of what would Manning go for in trade is interesting. I assume a win now team (Jets?) would be willing to pony up at least two first rounders, but that's only if Manning gets a clean bill of health.

Ryan Leaf. There is something to be said about bringing a QB along the right way. Years ago, people were in a virtual toss up between Manning and Leaf as to which would be a better QB. So, to go back to the original question for a sec, that in itself should be a reason that Luck might trust that the INDY organization knows how to do it right and he might want to go there.Back to the reply: As rookie contracts got out of control, teams were tossing their highly-paid rookie QBs into the mix early and A LOT of them that were highly touted coming out of colege got destroyed and were never the players everyone thought they would be. But back in the day, it was commonplace for teams to bring QBS around slowly. Now with the new rules, teams will not have absurd money tied up in top 5 QBS and will likely be more willing to bring them along a bit slower and that can be a good thing for players not being tossed into the fire. So instead of seeing it as a wasted year, look at it as more of an investment. I would rather see a guy wait until he was ~24 before being a strater than seeing him as a 27 year old that was on his 2nd or third team, had been beaten and sacked and injured and had become a journeyman backup.

Here's the problem.You sit the guy on the bench for two years, and then you only have one year to evaluate him. If he stinks in year 4, you pretty much have to cut him, as I believe the deals are structured as 4-year deals with club options for year 5, but the salary is pretty high in year 5. If he's great, that gives you two years, but you don't want him entering his final year without his contract, because then he's going to break the bank. Ideally, you extend him with two years left on his deal, which is still just after only one year of play.



I don't think anyone sits a QB for two full years anymore.

You speak as if Rodgers was drafted a long time ago.

 

[pollardsvision]

... or spend a year or two learning from one of the best QBs of all time...

re: Rodgers/Favre situation.

This...and it's not close. In fact, this would be a scenario most young QBs would HOPE to have happen. He'd rather go...? To the Dolphins and pcik the brain of Chad Henne? If I'm Luck, I'd be praying every day that Indy goes 0-16.

Peyton Manning disagrees

I don't think it matters as much to Luck where he goes as we are speculating. Positives and negatives with every situation. Go to a Miami, Denver, instant starter, new face of franchise.... but also everyone calling you "the next marino", "the next elway" and the constant comparisons. Or go to a team like Indy where you may or may not start for the first X number of years, but you develop and enter a really good situation when you do start (ala rodgers). Obviously his dream scenario is for san fran to trade for that pick, automatic starter on a division winning team. But that doesn't seem all that likely. Or maybe the vikings or seahawks get that top pick and then you're also put in a pretty decent situation to succeed. Tough to say what the kid wants.

Good thing he wouldn't have to worry about that sort of thing in Indy. (Not to mention your dream scenario of SF)

And it wouldn't be very much like Rodgers. The Colts are a bad team. The Packers were a pretty good team. It's unlikely that Manning's exit will resemble Favre's either, so Luck might not have the benefit of being a sympathetic figure like Rodgers was.

Going to the Colts means Luck gets to be in a high pressure situation (running Manning out of town, then following him), surrounded by a bad team.

If I were Luck, Indy would be one of the last places I'd want to go (not that I think he would or should go back to school over it).

Getting ahead of yourself here? He's not chasing Peyton out of town. And it's hard to tell if the Packers would be a good team without Rodgers.

Yes, I amIt's not hard to see how that could be how it plays out (in terms of public perception).

If they draft Luck, trading Manning becomes likely, imo. Not because of money, but because if you have the next Elway/Manning, sitting him for 3-5 years is dumb. It worked out for Rodgers, but it isn't ideal (not to mention, Rodgers wasn't drafted as the next Elway/Manning). If Luck is a back-up for the majority of his rookie contract, losing him altogether is a possibility.

I don't think Manning has much left, but what if he does?

What if they trade Manning to a good team, where he wins a bunch of games? Meanwhile Colts fans watch their team stink with little talent and a young QB?

Going to Indy would be a very high-pressure situation for Luck. Higher than most in the league. If he doesn't succeed, he could very easily be resented for being seen as the guy who ran Manning out of town.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

Jim Irsay is a fruitcake who won the birth lottery.

This isn't getting anywhere near enough love.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You speak as if Rodgers was drafted a long time ago.

Rodgers wasn't the #1 pick, and the plan wasn't to sit him for three years.Rookie contract is 4+1 years. I don't see how it makes sense to bench your #1 pick for three years, play him for one year, and then sign him to a megadeal. That defeats the whole point of having a cheap #1 pick.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Jim Irsay is a fruitcake who won the birth lottery.

This isn't getting anywhere near enough love.

Jim Irsay is the owner his dad never was (3 titles notwithstanding). Now if he wants to call his dad a fruitcake, I'm on board with that.

 

[pollardsvision]

I also don't think it makes sense to have Manning "tutor" Luck. You don't throw away a season or two to have someone "tutor" someone. If the Colts draft Luck, I assume they trade Manning. Otherwise, why tie an enormous chunk of your cap at the QB position when you have a ton of other needs? Realistically, they can't keep everyone, Manning and Luck.

Maybe they keep Manning for a year, but again, what's the point? Just like with the Eagles trading Kolb, I think you have to make a decision and go with it. In the NFL, you can't afford to have such a valuable commodity at backup QB.

The question of what would Manning go for in trade is interesting. I assume a win now team (Jets?) would be willing to pony up at least two first rounders, but that's only if Manning gets a clean bill of health.

Ryan Leaf. There is something to be said about bringing a QB along the right way. Years ago, people were in a virtual toss up between Manning and Leaf as to which would be a better QB. So, to go back to the original question for a sec, that in itself should be a reason that Luck might trust that the INDY organization knows how to do it right and he might want to go there.Back to the reply: As rookie contracts got out of control, teams were tossing their highly-paid rookie QBs into the mix early and A LOT of them that were highly touted coming out of colege got destroyed and were never the players everyone thought they would be. But back in the day, it was commonplace for teams to bring QBS around slowly. Now with the new rules, teams will not have absurd money tied up in top 5 QBS and will likely be more willing to bring them along a bit slower and that can be a good thing for players not being tossed into the fire. So instead of seeing it as a wasted year, look at it as more of an investment. I would rather see a guy wait until he was ~24 before being a strater than seeing him as a 27 year old that was on his 2nd or third team, had been beaten and sacked and injured and had become a journeyman backup.

Here's the problem.You sit the guy on the bench for two years, and then you only have one year to evaluate him. If he stinks in year 4, you pretty much have to cut him, as I believe the deals are structured as 4-year deals with club options for year 5, but the salary is pretty high in year 5. If he's great, that gives you two years, but you don't want him entering his final year without his contract, because then he's going to break the bank. Ideally, you extend him with two years left on his deal, which is still just after only one year of play.



I don't think anyone sits a QB for two full years anymore.

You speak as if Rodgers was drafted a long time ago.

If Favre had hadn't have waffled before the '08 season, Rodgers would be playing somewhere else by now.It's not a great comparison anyway. Rodgers wasn't drafted as the next great QB.

Rivers is a better example. Even then, it was only 2 years and SD had no idea what was about to happen with Brees.

I agree with Chase. If you think you are drafting the next Elway, the plan will not be to sit him for 2 years. It absolutely will not be to sit him for 3-4 years.

 

[Lash]

doesn't playing under Caldwell cancel out the good in playing with Manning?

 

[Short Corner]

You can't go back to school once you've hired an agent and been drafted.

He will know who wins the Suck For Luck contest before he has to declare.

Yes but he won't know about trade offers. You don't sit there with Indy having the top pick and just go back to school because you don't want to go there. Thats the most ridiculous suggestion for the most highly touted qb coming out of college in years. If Indy gets pick #1, I say there's a 50/50 shot that they trade the pick anyways and he could go somewhere and start.

No way in hell that happens. If Indy gets the first pick they are taking Luck.

 

[Instinctive]

I think St. Louis would also consider keeping Luck and trading Bradford. They might decide that Luck is the better player.

If they did get the top pick, I'd say they just trade whichever one they can get more for. Both will be incredible players (although, as much as it hurts, Luck very well could be better) so the goal should be to trade whichever one allows you to build the best around the one you keep.One thing to consider is the learning curve of the Josh McDaniels offense - Bradford should have a mediocre year this season based on the prior McD learning curve in NE/Denver. If you put Luck in, even if you do get a King's ransom of Bradford, you're set back one year of development not only from NCAA to NFL, but also learning the complicated McD offense.

 

[Deamon]

... or spend a year or two learning from one of the best QBs of all time...

re: Rodgers/Favre situation.

This...and it's not close. In fact, this would be a scenario most young QBs would HOPE to have happen. He'd rather go...? To the Dolphins and pcik the brain of Chad Henne? If I'm Luck, I'd be praying every day that Indy goes 0-16.

Peyton Manning disagrees

I don't think it matters as much to Luck where he goes as we are speculating. Positives and negatives with every situation. Go to a Miami, Denver, instant starter, new face of franchise.... but also everyone calling you "the next marino", "the next elway" and the constant comparisons. Or go to a team like Indy where you may or may not start for the first X number of years, but you develop and enter a really good situation when you do start (ala rodgers). Obviously his dream scenario is for san fran to trade for that pick, automatic starter on a division winning team. But that doesn't seem all that likely. Or maybe the vikings or seahawks get that top pick and then you're also put in a pretty decent situation to succeed. Tough to say what the kid wants.

Good thing he wouldn't have to worry about that sort of thing in Indy. (Not to mention your dream scenario of SF)

And it wouldn't be very much like Rodgers. The Colts are a bad team. The Packers were a pretty good team. It's unlikely that Manning's exit will resemble Favre's either, so Luck might not have the benefit of being a sympathetic figure like Rodgers was.

Going to the Colts means Luck gets to be in a high pressure situation (running Manning out of town, then following him), surrounded by a bad team.

If I were Luck, Indy would be one of the last places I'd want to go (not that I think he would or should go back to school over it).

Getting ahead of yourself here? He's not chasing Peyton out of town. And it's hard to tell if the Packers would be a good team without Rodgers.

Yes, I amIt's not hard to see how that could be how it plays out (in terms of public perception).

If they draft Luck, trading Manning becomes likely, imo. Not because of money, but because if you have the next Elway/Manning, sitting him for 3-5 years is dumb. It worked out for Rodgers, but it isn't ideal (not to mention, Rodgers wasn't drafted as the next Elway/Manning). If Luck is a back-up for the majority of his rookie contract, losing him altogether is a possibility.

I don't think Manning has much left, but what if he does?

What if they trade Manning to a good team, where he wins a bunch of games? Meanwhile Colts fans watch their team stink with little talent and a young QB?

Going to Indy would be a very high-pressure situation for Luck. Higher than most in the league. If he doesn't succeed, he could very easily be resented for being seen as the guy who ran Manning out of town.

I think we think of Indy worse then they are as a team. Yes without Manning they're horrible. But all that team has known is Peyton. He runs that offense, he's irreplaceable. I think if you gave that team as is a full offseason of preparing with a new QB, they'd be better then they are now. They're a team that relies and leans heavily on their QB. I think with 4 months together and Andrew Luck at the helm, they could be a good team. That Colts team with Luck next year would be better then this Miami team with Luck next year imo.So I don't think its that bad for Luck to go to Indy, although I do agree that the chances of him sitting for 3 years is very unlikely, and no one has a crystal ball to know how long Peyton will play for. I still just can't see Indy trading Peyton no matter what. I think they'd play the game like they're gonna draft Luck, but draft day take a ridiculous deal from another team, move down and take Barkley or Jones. Now THAT would be a good situation for Indy, no huge pressure to start, let one of those 2 guys aaron rodgers it up, and laugh as you have 2 first rounders and 2 second rounders for the next 2-3 years.

 

[CalBear]

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

What good did it do the Niners to start Montana for four years in front of Young, or for the Packers to start Favre for three years in front of Rodgers? Quite a bit of good, it seems.The fact is, even if Manning comes back, the Colts will probably have to assume that he has a significant risk of a season-ending or career-ending injury at any time, and he'll be 36 next year. They need a capable backup and a succession plan; they are not going to assume that Manning will still be starting for them at age 40.

 

[pollardsvision]

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

What good did it do the Niners to start Montana for four years in front of Young, or for the Packers to start Favre for three years in front of Rodgers? Quite a bit of good, it seems.The fact is, even if Manning comes back, the Colts will probably have to assume that he has a significant risk of a season-ending or career-ending injury at any time, and he'll be 36 next year. They need a capable backup and a succession plan; they are not going to assume that Manning will still be starting for them at age 40.

I think you misunderstood. Nobody's saying Luck couldn't have a great career sitting for a few years behind Manning. It's just that they won't be able to keep him if he sits for the duration of Peyton's contract. Just like the Packers would've lost Rodgers if Favre came back in '08. They may not assume Peyton's playing till age 40 (though nothing new or unpredictable has really happened since they signed him to age 40), but Peyton probably does. If he comes back healthy next year, he'll assume he's playing until 40

If Peyton is healthy and productive next season, the only way to be sure Luck's not a wasted pick is to trade one of the 2.

 

[CalBear]

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

What good did it do the Niners to start Montana for four years in front of Young, or for the Packers to start Favre for three years in front of Rodgers? Quite a bit of good, it seems.The fact is, even if Manning comes back, the Colts will probably have to assume that he has a significant risk of a season-ending or career-ending injury at any time, and he'll be 36 next year. They need a capable backup and a succession plan; they are not going to assume that Manning will still be starting for them at age 40.

I think you misunderstood. Nobody's saying Luck couldn't have a great career sitting for a few years behind Manning. It's just that they won't be able to keep him if he sits for the duration of Peyton's contract. Just like the Packers would've lost Rodgers if Favre came back in '08. They may not assume Peyton's playing till age 40 (though nothing new or unpredictable has really happened since they signed him to age 40), but Peyton probably does. If he comes back healthy next year, he'll assume he's playing until 40

If Peyton is healthy and productive next season, the only way to be sure Luck's not a wasted pick is to trade one of the 2.

Luck may be a wasted pick anyway. He could be the next Matt Leinart. There's risk associated with anyone you draft. I don't think the Colts would avoid Luck just because they have a 36-year-old QB coming off two neck surgeries, who might decide he wants to play for another four years if he doesn't get paralyzed in the meantime, and I don't think they would trade Manning in 2012 if he's capable of playing.

 

[SoBeDad]

The value of a hall of fame QB as a tutor is over-rated. It's more important to actually be good and to have good players around the QB. Look at Marino who had good receivers and a hall of fame center, and was able to light it up from game 1. Or Cam Newton who has Steve Smith and Deangelo Williams. Marino's "tutors" were Woodley and Strock, while Newton has Derek Anderson and Clausen.

The Dolphins have played a tough schedule - NE, HOU, CLEV and SD - and been in every game until almost the end. They've been hurt by injuries to their best RB (Thomas) and best CB (Davis) and Jake Long is not 100%. Still, they may be favored in only 2 of their remaining games - home games vs Denver and Buffalo. In the game versus Cleveland, I was not the only Dolphan rooting for Colt McCoy on that last drive. Since Marino retired 12 years ago in 1999, the Dolphins have had 16 different starting QBs.

 

[Raider Nation]

It won't matter anyway. I see maybe two wins on Miami's schedule.

I see about four or five wins on Indy's schedule, with Painter now playing as well as some of us expected.

INDIANAPOLIS — How far has Curtis Painter come in two starts for the Colts? Farther than anyone could have expected.

Doing his best Peyton Manning impersonation, the third-year pro engineered four first-half scores in six possessions in last Sunday's 28-24 loss to the Kansas City Chiefs, with the lone exceptions stalled by a holding penalty and a dropped pass.

And for the first time all season, whether with Painter or veteran Kerry Collins at quarterback, the Colts opened up the playbook, stretching the defense with longer throws to take advantage of the talents of Pierre Garcon and Reggie Wayne while creating a little space for the running game — though that hole closed after Joseph Addai left with a hamstring injury.

"Curtis is our starter right now, and after this performance I certainly don't know why there would be a question (on whether he'll stay the starter)," coach Jim Caldwell said on Sunday. "He did a tremendous job. He's not turning it over, doing a great job in terms of getting checks done at the line of scrimmage, and he threw the ball well even when he had a few drops out there (including three by Dallas Clark).

"This is one of the first times that he's had a complete week to prepare, and I think you can see the difference. He keeps getting a little better."

Painter saw his first action of the season in a 23-20 loss to Pittsburgh in Week 3, when he came off the bench to engineer a late score-tying drive. He played the whole way in a 24-17 loss at Tampa Bay and again vs. Kansas City.

He has completed 33 of 68 passes for 618 yards, four touchdowns and no interceptions. While the 48.5 completion percentage is low, his quarterback rating of 100.0 is still much better than Collins' 65.9.

"You can see that he's more comfortable, and that he wasn't just sitting around not paying attention when Peyton was playing," said center Jeff Saturday. "Curtis is a bright guy, and he's making good decisions."

One of Painter's best reads came when, after spying the defense on second-and-goal from the 3-yard line, he checked out of a shotgun pass and into a run that resulted in a 3-yard touchdown by Delone Carter. It was a move you expect from Manning, but not from a player who hasn't had many repetitions in the NFL.

And it didn't go unnoticed, as Painter received cheers from fans who stayed clear of his bandwagon after his failure to protect an unbeaten regular season two years ago.

"We're trying to win and we're happy that we've had the crowd behind us all season despite a pretty rough start," said Painter. "Whatever the case, we're glad that they're still cheering us on."

The Colts are on the road the rest of the month, returning home Nov. 6 to play the Atlanta Falcons.

Figure Painter to still be the starter, provided he stays healthy behind the patchwork offensive line. He plans to keep practicing hard and, of course, listening to his mentor.

"Having Peyton around, with his experience, that helps all the time," he said. "He'll explain something, show me things to look for, and that can only make me better. The big thing now is to get some wins. We don't want to get frustrated, but we're so close that it hurts."

 

[Joe Summer]

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

What good did it do the Niners to start Montana for four years in front of Young, or for the Packers to start Favre for three years in front of Rodgers? Quite a bit of good, it seems.

Oh come on. Those aren't apples-to-apples comparisons because neither team invested a #1 overall draft pick. The 49ers only gave up the #50 and #106 draft picks, for Pete's sake, which is less than what a team typically spends on A.J. Feeley. It didn't hurt them to keep Young on the bench because he cost them almost nothing.But keeping Luck could cost the Colts in 2 ways -- first, because he could be the most expensive backup in the league (preventing the Colts from spending that money elsewhere); and second, because he prevents the Colts from drafting player(s) that could help them make one last Super Bowl run with Manning.

 

[Ray_T]

... or spend a year or two learning from one of the best QBs of all time...re: Rodgers/Favre situation.

This...and it's not close. In fact, this would be a scenario most young QBs would HOPE to have happen. He'd rather go...? To the Dolphins and pcik the brain of Chad Henne? If I'm Luck, I'd be praying every day that Indy goes 0-16.

Then he would have to live in Indianapolis for the next XX years. I would be hoping that Denver or Miami got the pick myself. Both probably have equal or better talent at the positions other than QB to Indianapolis.

You sign your rookie contract. Stay benched BUT learn from arguably the best QB to ever play the game for 1-3yrs. Once youre acclimated you have how many years left on your rookie contract before he can "leave indy" for another team? (if that's what he REALLY wanted,was to leave.. doubtful)Or, go to a club where regardless of his talent, the team surrounding him may suck to the Nth degree.. he takes the brunt of the criticism as a rookie starter. Never fully develops. Fails.He'd be a fool to not want to go to Indy. For a million and one reasons.

I agree.also, given the nature of Mannings injury, he will likely return next year at the age of 36 and play til he is 38 (unless he gets hurt sooner)Then Manning can leave behind a legacy of a player he helped mould into a star and his team will be awesome for years to come. This is a no brainer.

 

[YouthofToday]

Has anybody considered that Peyton doesn't want the Colts to draft Luck?

1. How does having a backup QB help him win another Super Bowl.

2. Wouldn't he rather the Colts trade the pick for reinforcements on the olins and on defense?

I strongly suspect the Colts haven't placed Peyton on IR because of Peyton's request. If Peyton is healthy by week 16 and the team is in the Luck sweepstakes expect Peyton to return to ensure the Colts use their 1st round pick on another position. If the Colts are out of the Luck sweepstakes by week 16 or so, and Peyton is healthy, I would think he would be less likely to return.

 

[Short Corner]

Has anybody considered that Peyton doesn't want the Colts to draft Luck?1. How does having a backup QB help him win another Super Bowl.2. Wouldn't he rather the Colts trade the pick for reinforcements on the olins and on defense?I strongly suspect the Colts haven't placed Peyton on IR because of Peyton's request. If Peyton is healthy by week 16 and the team is in the Luck sweepstakes expect Peyton to return to ensure the Colts use their 1st round pick on another position. If the Colts are out of the Luck sweepstakes by week 16 or so, and Peyton is healthy, I would think he would be less likely to return.

Peyton is done.

 

[sycamore]

You can't go back to school once you've hired an agent and been drafted.

He will know who wins the Suck For Luck contest before he has to declare.

Yes but he won't know about trade offers. You don't sit there with Indy having the top pick and just go back to school because you don't want to go there. Thats the most ridiculous suggestion for the most highly touted qb coming out of college in years. If Indy gets pick #1, I say there's a 50/50 shot that they trade the pick anyways and he could go somewhere and start.

50/50 the Colts would trade the pick? I highly doubt it. The Colts will need a QB. IF Manning returns to the field next year, he won't have more than a couple years left...Perfect situation for both Luck and the Colts.

 

[sycamore]

You can't go back to school once you've hired an agent and been drafted.

He will know who wins the Suck For Luck contest before he has to declare.

Yes but he won't know about trade offers. You don't sit there with Indy having the top pick and just go back to school because you don't want to go there. Thats the most ridiculous suggestion for the most highly touted qb coming out of college in years. If Indy gets pick #1, I say there's a 50/50 shot that they trade the pick anyways and he could go somewhere and start.

I didn't say he would say that. I was just responding that he will know who has the pick and that it was never discussed that he would have an agent or get drafted before obtaining that information.I say there is about a 5% chance the #1 pick gets traded. It used to be because of the financial obligation. Now it will be because no owner/GM wants to be the guy that traded the next John Elway.

So you are saying if the Rams got the first pick they would keep it?

The Rams are probably the one underperforming team that would "consider" trading him. Even then it would not be a lock. When you consider Miami plays in the AFC East (and against the NFC East this year), the Colts, Denver and KC, there is a small chance they find themselves at #1...and even if they do, I would be surprised if there was a package someone could put together that would make the trade worth their time. When you consider that the team that they trade Luck too would immediately get an infusion in QB talent (lets use Miami), they would trade Luck for a #2-3 overall pick in 2012, a 12-15 overall pick in 2013, and player or two and some random mid round picks...not sure that does it for one of the top 3 best QB prospects in the last 28 years.

Then what do they do with Bradford? There's no way that team has Bradford and Luck next year. You're contradicting yourself though.. you're saying Luck is one of the best in 28 years and an automatic massive upgrade to most teams.... yet you don't think ANY qb needy team could put together a package that would even be "worth their time"? You also can't really factor in how high the pick is going to be. St. Louis isn't going to say "hmmm well Luck will make their team top 10 in 2 years in the nfl so that 2014 first rounder doesn't sound very good as it will obviously be a lower pick"St. Louis also plays against the NFC East, they are banged up like crazy, and look terrible. Remember, the worst record will probably have 3 wins this year give or take 1. KC and Denver are halfway there already. I see this as Indy, Miami, or St. Louis as the front runners right now based on how they've played, their remaining schedule, injuries, etc. St. Louis has so many holes and needs right now, that stockpiling picks, and making a trade that insures Luck doesn't go to Seattle or San Fran would be so great for that team. Luck is no guarentee to not get hurt, not be a bust (jamarcus, leaf, smith, etc). i agree he looks awesome and likely won't be a bust, but if you're St. Louis, you have a franchise QB right now, and Miami comes along and offers you a huge deal to move up 1 spot or 2, I don't think St. Louis passes it up, and they'll certainly do more then 'even consider it'

What does St. Louis playing the NFC East have to do with anything? That division looks awful so far. May not end up that way, but it's one of the worst divisions so far.

 

[Deamon]

You can't go back to school once you've hired an agent and been drafted.

He will know who wins the Suck For Luck contest before he has to declare.

Yes but he won't know about trade offers. You don't sit there with Indy having the top pick and just go back to school because you don't want to go there. Thats the most ridiculous suggestion for the most highly touted qb coming out of college in years. If Indy gets pick #1, I say there's a 50/50 shot that they trade the pick anyways and he could go somewhere and start.

I didn't say he would say that. I was just responding that he will know who has the pick and that it was never discussed that he would have an agent or get drafted before obtaining that information.I say there is about a 5% chance the #1 pick gets traded. It used to be because of the financial obligation. Now it will be because no owner/GM wants to be the guy that traded the next John Elway.

So you are saying if the Rams got the first pick they would keep it?

The Rams are probably the one underperforming team that would "consider" trading him. Even then it would not be a lock. When you consider Miami plays in the AFC East (and against the NFC East this year), the Colts, Denver and KC, there is a small chance they find themselves at #1...and even if they do, I would be surprised if there was a package someone could put together that would make the trade worth their time. When you consider that the team that they trade Luck too would immediately get an infusion in QB talent (lets use Miami), they would trade Luck for a #2-3 overall pick in 2012, a 12-15 overall pick in 2013, and player or two and some random mid round picks...not sure that does it for one of the top 3 best QB prospects in the last 28 years.

Then what do they do with Bradford? There's no way that team has Bradford and Luck next year. You're contradicting yourself though.. you're saying Luck is one of the best in 28 years and an automatic massive upgrade to most teams.... yet you don't think ANY qb needy team could put together a package that would even be "worth their time"? You also can't really factor in how high the pick is going to be. St. Louis isn't going to say "hmmm well Luck will make their team top 10 in 2 years in the nfl so that 2014 first rounder doesn't sound very good as it will obviously be a lower pick"St. Louis also plays against the NFC East, they are banged up like crazy, and look terrible. Remember, the worst record will probably have 3 wins this year give or take 1. KC and Denver are halfway there already. I see this as Indy, Miami, or St. Louis as the front runners right now based on how they've played, their remaining schedule, injuries, etc. St. Louis has so many holes and needs right now, that stockpiling picks, and making a trade that insures Luck doesn't go to Seattle or San Fran would be so great for that team. Luck is no guarentee to not get hurt, not be a bust (jamarcus, leaf, smith, etc). i agree he looks awesome and likely won't be a bust, but if you're St. Louis, you have a franchise QB right now, and Miami comes along and offers you a huge deal to move up 1 spot or 2, I don't think St. Louis passes it up, and they'll certainly do more then 'even consider it'

What does St. Louis playing the NFC East have to do with anything? That division looks awful so far. May not end up that way, but it's one of the worst divisions so far.

I know, but prior poster was using the nfc east saying miami plays against them so that will be tough for them

 

[Deamon]

You can't go back to school once you've hired an agent and been drafted.

He will know who wins the Suck For Luck contest before he has to declare.

Yes but he won't know about trade offers. You don't sit there with Indy having the top pick and just go back to school because you don't want to go there. Thats the most ridiculous suggestion for the most highly touted qb coming out of college in years. If Indy gets pick #1, I say there's a 50/50 shot that they trade the pick anyways and he could go somewhere and start.

50/50 the Colts would trade the pick? I highly doubt it. The Colts will need a QB. IF Manning returns to the field next year, he won't have more than a couple years left...Perfect situation for both Luck and the Colts.

not a perfect situation for luck to be behind manning for 2-5 years.

 

[spider321]

If Manning has 5 years left, I'm the Easter Bunny.

 

[Steelfan7]

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

What good did it do the Niners to start Montana for four years in front of Young, or for the Packers to start Favre for three years in front of Rodgers? Quite a bit of good, it seems.The fact is, even if Manning comes back, the Colts will probably have to assume that he has a significant risk of a season-ending or career-ending injury at any time, and he'll be 36 next year. They need a capable backup and a succession plan; they are not going to assume that Manning will still be starting for them at age 40.

I think you misunderstood. Nobody's saying Luck couldn't have a great career sitting for a few years behind Manning. It's just that they won't be able to keep him if he sits for the duration of Peyton's contract. Just like the Packers would've lost Rodgers if Favre came back in '08. They may not assume Peyton's playing till age 40 (though nothing new or unpredictable has really happened since they signed him to age 40), but Peyton probably does. If he comes back healthy next year, he'll assume he's playing until 40

If Peyton is healthy and productive next season, the only way to be sure Luck's not a wasted pick is to trade one of the 2.

I think I've read/heard that Peyton's contract as a team option after next season so Luck would only have to sit possibly one year behind Manning in Indy.

 

[pollardsvision]

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

What good did it do the Niners to start Montana for four years in front of Young, or for the Packers to start Favre for three years in front of Rodgers? Quite a bit of good, it seems.The fact is, even if Manning comes back, the Colts will probably have to assume that he has a significant risk of a season-ending or career-ending injury at any time, and he'll be 36 next year. They need a capable backup and a succession plan; they are not going to assume that Manning will still be starting for them at age 40.

I think you misunderstood. Nobody's saying Luck couldn't have a great career sitting for a few years behind Manning. It's just that they won't be able to keep him if he sits for the duration of Peyton's contract. Just like the Packers would've lost Rodgers if Favre came back in '08. They may not assume Peyton's playing till age 40 (though nothing new or unpredictable has really happened since they signed him to age 40), but Peyton probably does. If he comes back healthy next year, he'll assume he's playing until 40

If Peyton is healthy and productive next season, the only way to be sure Luck's not a wasted pick is to trade one of the 2.

I think I've read/heard that Peyton's contract as a team option after next season so Luck would only have to sit possibly one year behind Manning in Indy.

I don't know if that's true. I know they can opt out after this season. In either case (2011 or 2012 option), it would really only matter if Manning is essentially done.

If he's not and he looks solid in 2012, the choices for the Colts, if they also have Luck, would become far more uncomfortable.

 

[Short Corner]

If Manning is back and capable of playing, he is going to start. If Manning is not capable of playing, he will retire or be released. They won't keep him on at $10M/year to be a backup.

If you're going to start Manning, then you're probably going to start Manning for the life of Luck's contract. What good does that do you?

What good did it do the Niners to start Montana for four years in front of Young, or for the Packers to start Favre for three years in front of Rodgers? Quite a bit of good, it seems.The fact is, even if Manning comes back, the Colts will probably have to assume that he has a significant risk of a season-ending or career-ending injury at any time, and he'll be 36 next year. They need a capable backup and a succession plan; they are not going to assume that Manning will still be starting for them at age 40.

I think you misunderstood. Nobody's saying Luck couldn't have a great career sitting for a few years behind Manning. It's just that they won't be able to keep him if he sits for the duration of Peyton's contract. Just like the Packers would've lost Rodgers if Favre came back in '08. They may not assume Peyton's playing till age 40 (though nothing new or unpredictable has really happened since they signed him to age 40), but Peyton probably does. If he comes back healthy next year, he'll assume he's playing until 40

If Peyton is healthy and productive next season, the only way to be sure Luck's not a wasted pick is to trade one of the 2.

I think I've read/heard that Peyton's contract as a team option after next season so Luck would only have to sit possibly one year behind Manning in Indy.

They are still on the hook for $26M. I am not sure how that gets allocated cap wise if they opt out.

 

[FUBAR]

You can't go back to school once you've hired an agent and been drafted.

He will know who wins the Suck For Luck contest before he has to declare.

Yes but he won't know about trade offers. You don't sit there with Indy having the top pick and just go back to school because you don't want to go there. Thats the most ridiculous suggestion for the most highly touted qb coming out of college in years. If Indy gets pick #1, I say there's a 50/50 shot that they trade the pick anyways and he could go somewhere and start.

50/50 the Colts would trade the pick? I highly doubt it. The Colts will need a QB. IF Manning returns to the field next year, he won't have more than a couple years left...Perfect situation for both Luck and the Colts.

not a perfect situation for luck to be behind manning for 2-5 years.

I'll agree with 5 years being a bad deal, but there's nothing wrong with a "next franchise QB" being the backup for 2 years. The only argument I find compelling is that the Colts would be passing on a player or two who would help Peyton win another Super Bowl before he retires.It's somewhat surprising how many highly touted QBs get traded on draft day. Eli, Elway, and Vick come to mind immediately. 2 out of those 3 trades turned out well for the "losing" team.

 

[DAMAC3]

As an Indianapolis-area resident (and apparent fat-### living in the middle of nowhere based on this thread), I think it would be the absolutely most interesting scenario if the Colts have the #1 overall pick. I've been thinking about the same questions that have been brought up in this thread. Is it wise to have both Luck and Manning on the team together for more than 1 year? That is a lot of talent and cap space taken up by one position. Could the ransom they would get from a trade put Indy in a good spot to compete for a Superbowl or two before Manning is done?

I have a hard time seeing the Colts trade Manning away. He is so integrated into the team and the city that I think it would be difficult to make that call. And what if you trade Manning away and Luck isn't what we expected? No matter what if the Colts do end up with the top pick (which I don't think will happen, btw), it will be very interesting to see what Irsay and Polian decide to do. There is a lot of opportunity to look bad. They could trade away the wrong guy because either Manning doesn't come back the same or Luck isn't who we thought he was. And if you keep both while Manning finishes out his career you are going to deal with an ugly QB controversy at some point. I am a big Manning fan, but everyone has seen how selfish he is about taking all the snaps in practice and games and not letting anyone else develop. It would take a big personality adjustment for him to give up enough control to let someone like Luck develop not be wasted for several years.

 

[DAMAC3]

By the way - As much as I have loved having Manning on the Colts, as a Colts fan I think you draft Luck and model the tough decision the Packers made. Better to turn away from your HOF QB a year early than to pay him $20+ million a year for a couple washed up years at the end. I believe Manning is about the same age Favre was when the Packers drafted Rodgers.

 

[D.J.]

I think Manning will have a lot of say in the decision. He is obviously more than a qb to that team (calling timeouts last week, sitting in the coaches booth). I think its an insult to think manning would pout like favre if the colts drafted his replacement. maybe manning would embrace the chance to mentor luck? There is already speculation manning will immediately be hired as a coach for indy upon retirement. Maybe manning would recognize that drafting luck would be great for his second career. most people realize that in a world of checkers, manning plays chess.

On the other hand, if manning thinks the value of trading the pick could net them another super bowl, he could push for the trade.

And yes, I do think manning has the power in that organization to influence the decision. But I think he has the power because irsay trusts that manning has the interwst of the organization in mind. I could be wrong though

 

[LittlePhatty]

Indy will not have the first pick.

/thread

 

[Bri]

You can't go back to school once you've hired an agent and been drafted. And no way he plays college next year. It was surprising he did this year, but with lockout looming and wanting to play one more year to polish skills, there's no chance he risks breaking his leg next year in college and throwing away millions of dollars and getting an office job. Luck is going pro no matter who drafts him.

this is not the case. The best college players get insurance for this. there was a bunch written about Bradford's shoulder and insurance if you feel like googling

 

[Deamon]

You can't go back to school once you've hired an agent and been drafted.

He will know who wins the Suck For Luck contest before he has to declare.

Yes but he won't know about trade offers. You don't sit there with Indy having the top pick and just go back to school because you don't want to go there. Thats the most ridiculous suggestion for the most highly touted qb coming out of college in years. If Indy gets pick #1, I say there's a 50/50 shot that they trade the pick anyways and he could go somewhere and start.

50/50 the Colts would trade the pick? I highly doubt it. The Colts will need a QB. IF Manning returns to the field next year, he won't have more than a couple years left...Perfect situation for both Luck and the Colts.

not a perfect situation for luck to be behind manning for 2-5 years.

I'll agree with 5 years being a bad deal, but there's nothing wrong with a "next franchise QB" being the backup for 2 years. The only argument I find compelling is that the Colts would be passing on a player or two who would help Peyton win another Super Bowl before he retires.It's somewhat surprising how many highly touted QBs get traded on draft day. Eli, Elway, and Vick come to mind immediately. 2 out of those 3 trades turned out well for the "losing" team.

But that's just the case. I agree with you that 1 year behind manning is probably good for the kid. 2 I think is kinda stretching it for this guys talent, but would still be okay. when you start getting into 3 its iffy, and 4 or 5 is not good at all. So Indy really has to Predict (not sure how the hell they'll do that) how many more years Peyton is going to play.

 

[rickyg]

... or spend a year or two learning from one of the best QBs of all time...re: Rodgers/Favre situation.

This...and it's not close. In fact, this would be a scenario most young QBs would HOPE to have happen. He'd rather go...? To the Dolphins and pcik the brain of Chad Henne? If I'm Luck, I'd be praying every day that Indy goes 0-16.

Then he would have to live in Indianapolis for the next XX years. I would be hoping that Denver or Miami got the pick myself. Both probably have equal or better talent at the positions other than QB to Indianapolis.

I like the fit in Miami. He would start rt away for an organization that desperately needs a marquee qb. He would have some nice weapons to work with in bush, marshall, and bess. Luck is already awesome. Why have him sit and rot for 3-4 years behind a legend like Manning when his career can start rt away. Are you telling me that Luck does not have the same or better g-d given talent and brains as sam bradford, joe flacco, mark sanchez, matthew stafford? All of those qb's started right away as rookies and have become successful qb's at the nfl level. Why can't luck do it? He will know who has the 1st pick before he needs to declare. From a pure money standpoint and avoiding a serious injury in college I understand him going to the nfl. but from a pure love of the game standpoint and luck being a competitor and wanting to have an immediate opportunity to make an impact at the nfl level I think this would be a solid strategy for him.

 

[Deamon]

... or spend a year or two learning from one of the best QBs of all time...re: Rodgers/Favre situation.

This...and it's not close. In fact, this would be a scenario most young QBs would HOPE to have happen. He'd rather go...? To the Dolphins and pcik the brain of Chad Henne? If I'm Luck, I'd be praying every day that Indy goes 0-16.

Then he would have to live in Indianapolis for the next XX years. I would be hoping that Denver or Miami got the pick myself. Both probably have equal or better talent at the positions other than QB to Indianapolis.

I like the fit in Miami. He would start rt away for an organization that desperately needs a marquee qb. He would have some nice weapons to work with in bush, marshall, and bess. Luck is already awesome. Why have him sit and rot for 3-4 years behind a legend like Manning when his career can start rt away. Are you telling me that Luck does not have the same or better g-d given talent and brains as sam bradford, joe flacco, mark sanchez, matthew stafford? All of those qb's started right away as rookies and have become successful qb's at the nfl level. Why can't luck do it? He will know who has the 1st pick before he needs to declare. From a pure money standpoint and avoiding a serious injury in college I understand him going to the nfl. but from a pure love of the game standpoint and luck being a competitor and wanting to have an immediate opportunity to make an impact at the nfl level I think this would be a solid strategy for him.

He graduates this year and has already pretty much said this is his last year at Stanford. He's not staying, nor would it be a good strategy.