Our o-line issues may be solved internally if Jerry can actually play RT. If he can, then you need a starting caliber guard, which I believe Garner is. And even if he isn't, you can find a starting guard. They are out there. That's not a good reason to not trade up for Luck
In..a..heart beat Jmp, we can absorb the loss of a single #1 pick, be it Top 10 or not, especially fo a proven and productive Vet Qb. 3 #1's for Luck and 2 #2's, or 3 2's and 2 #1's, that is exposing the franchise to far to great of a risk imo. Cost Benefit Analysis on Luck is that package is just betting the house on black on one spin of the roulette wheel.
Oh I suspect no reason would be good enough, never mind the Colts probably will not trade the pick, that does not bring out feverish trade scenarios.
You really should take off the teal and orange colored glasses and actually watch him play. Sanchez is not downright horrible. Downright horrible does not throw for 21 TD passes (tied for 9th with Roethlisberger), rush for another 5 and have an 83 QBR. I am not saying he's great, or even anything above average, but "downright horrible" is a gross exaggeration. My biggest gripe with Schottenheimer is that he seems compelled to show everyone how smart he is. He loves the trick play, or ones that are so complicated that you need to be a football Einstein to execute them. And he will call them when they need just 3 or 4 yards. Instead of lining up and running that ball in a conventional manner, he call these insane batsh!t plays. He might turn out to be a good HC, but my feeling is that he would have his hands all over the offense and he would be a smug prick, stuck in a "my way or the highway" mentality. How he lasted this long with Ryan is beyond me. I think it has something to do with Johnson, because I think Rex wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if he left. I know I wouldn't and would be ecstatic if he went to Miami.
I disagree that it would be a bad decision. First of all we should have Moore back to fill-in until Luck is ready. With Long and Pouncey we have 2/5 ths of great line in place. You don't need to use high draft picks to fill out the rest of the line. Later picks and FAs are more than sufficient. You can say the same about the rest of our needs. S, 2nd TE, 2nd pass rusher, #2 WR can all be addressed with lesser resources. And a franchise QB can not be compared to any other position. A true franchise QB is the difference between 11-5 Colts and an 0-13 Colts. That's what you don't get with an Orton or a Schaub. Those guys need the team around them to be good enough. A franchise guy raises the level of his surrounding cast.
No way man Luck over Schaub any day, Franchise level qb vs a very good often injured qb any day. Your talking on one side how draft picks are iffy propositions yet when we talk about trading these iffy picks for someone considered as sure a bet as it comes at a position we desparately need, you say no. Thing is, your approach has been tried by 3 diff regimes, 4 diff regimes and guess what we havent solved the problem, yet you advocate the same approach. Here is my opinion, Franchise level qbs are not let go of, they are paid. Drew Brees was an exception to the rule. I dont want anymore good enough qbs, I want elite, I want a chance at elite. the draft is where you get that chance, no it doesnt always work, but when you have tried the alternative approaches over and over with constant failure, well I like my earlier saying those that dont learn from their mistatakes are doomed to repeat them
Give up that much value, then sit Luck? What exactly were you trading for in the first place. Rivers and Chargers are not exactly setting the world alight, and once again, comparing a All Time Qb like Manning to a draft pick is not exactly objective Rafi.
You're drafting Luck b/c you believe him to have the potential to be an all-time great. If that takes a season of seasoning then I'm okay with that. And b/c I compare him to Manning is why I'm willing to make that trade. I am not the guy who advocates trading up very often. For example, in this last draft I didn't advocate trading up for any of those QBs. I thought some of them were potential franchise guys, but I wasn't confident enough to pay a premium for them. I do feel that confident about Luck. You seem to believe that all prospects are the same and that drafting a QB is just a crap shoot. So if a first round pick turns into Schaub you are thrilled. I don't. I believe you can evaluate a QB and that different prospects have different likelihood of success. I see Luck becoming Schaub as a floor and his upside is that he becomes far better than Manning.
but your downplaying the importance of a franchise qb vs a good qb. You are devaluing the value of the draft pick. You point to Rivers, but it is one year when the team is in turmoil and the coach has lost the team and while Rivers is throwing a large number of ints, without Rivers, they may not have won a game. His whole body of work is sign and cant be ignored. There is no convincing me that the best approach is to go with Moore, or get Schaub rather than drafting a ranchise qb and especially Luck when while the scenario is overpaying it isnt Ricky williams over paying for a qb that is graded at Peyton Manning grade.
You better keep hoping because Chad Pennington is done. No way in hell I would take another chance on him.
In the event Miami does end up with Andrew Luck, I'd like to think that given his experience playing in a pro-style system at Stanford coupled with the recent successes of Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, and even going back to guys like Ryan and Flacco, Andrew Luck would get the starting nod from day one. I'd also expect that in a head-to-head competition, he wouldn't have that much of a struggle in beating out Matt Moore for the job outright.
How did a Carl Peterson thread turn into another pissing match about getting Andrew Luck. Give it up folks. It's not going to happen.
I actually believe that too. I was just addressing Padre's concern that we'd be throwing a rookie in who wasn't ready. I see that as a worse case scenario, Moore could handle those duties as well as he has the last month until Luck would be ready.
Ah, I see. I too agree that having Moore as a "bridge" isn't a bad plan. At the very least, he's a capable backup to come in and play well if you need him too. I think at the absolute very least, he's shown that much this year.
I agree I wasnt saying I wanted Penny back, I said I would rather go that route than give up a top ten pick for a guy that is hurt as often as Penny and count on playing 16 games as much as you can count on penny
-that is essentially betting the next 6 seasons on Andrew Luck -I supsect we have not seen even good Qb play in Miami consistently, in yrs, long enough that most fans do not know what it looks like.
if the FO really thinks that Luck is a Manning type, than taking the lumps for a couple of years will be worth it in the end.
Irrelevant. I'm not saying what I would do. I'm demonstrating that Carl Peterson has a WELL established history of shying away from drafted quarterbacks, and going for the veteran, even at great expense (see 1st round picks for Joe Montana and Trent Green). If Peterson comes onto the team in an official role and is given essentially the keys to do WHATever he wants, without any agreements on the QB position that are made as a condition of hire...then I'd bet on Miami getting a veteran QB and not a drafted QB. That's what I'm saying.
EXACTLY right. This is exactly why I don't care what the Polians choose to leak out to Adam Schefter or Chris Mortenson, etc. Bill Polian is a smart man. He won't "decide" to cut Peyton Manning until 5 minutes before he files the paperwork. It makes zero sense to say anything other than that they intend to roster Peyton Manning and Andrew luck next year. There's literally no benefit, only cost.
Think about it, that is the "heart" of 3 drafts, then yrs #4-#6, you have to give the players you draft time to develop. I'm very much a believer you do not need high draft picks to succeed, that they are overrated, however what you cannot do is pull "Wannys" trading them yr after yr after yr and you will have a talent deficit because the Draft Process is in fact flawed, but not THAT flawed, the numbers catch up with you.
First off, Matt Barkley would have to be off the board an unattainable for me to even think about it. In that scenario, I'd rather use the top 10 pick and then draft Brandon Weeden in the 2nd round, if push came to shove that way.
take the 2007 draft. there is only one player on the roster in the starting 22 and he may not even be in the plans next year. if Soliai was not on the team, the record would not have changed that much. that's an entire draft. imagine that Jamarcus Russell was Andrew Luck in 2007 and we traded the whole draft for him. that would not set us back 6 years. in fact we would likely be better
I agree with you. Peyton Manning as a free agent is one thing. If he is healthy, then sure, that would be exciting and we'd probably be pretty good for a few years. But barring that, the plan should be to secure whichever QB we like best in the 1st round. If that's Luck and you strike out, move on to Barkley, then RG111, etc. If Petersen trades the 7th pick in the draft for Matt Schaub, it's time to fold up the tents and hit the highway. (If we were talking about the 7th pick for a Rivers, or someone of that ilk it would be a different story)
-Dolphins were provably the worst drafting team from 2000-07 -and this is not the whole draft, this is the heart of several drafts Ginn, Booker, Beck, all are in the NFL, along with Brandon Fields. Now "imagine": -Jake Long/Merling -Vontae Davis/White or Smith -Odrick/Misi All, not here for Luck.
Yep, 3 #1's and 3 #2's, or 3 #1's and 2 #2's, Peterson would never agree to pay that much, heck as Ck pointed out, he did give up a #1 pick for Trent Green, however he has no such history of doing so, quite the opposite he is known to drag every ounce of value he can from his own picks and players, not give up value for other teams players.
And with those guys we've won exactly nothing. I think I would trade most of them right now, maybe sans Long for Luck
And part of the reason hes never won is because of the fact he isnt willing to do what it takes to get a premier QB. He doesnt do what it takes to get players to his team. He seems very risk averse and conservative. This is why I dont want him.
Betting on Luck is a good bet. I would say that it's been so long that you don't know what a franchise QB looks like.
Fair point. Problem is that we do have those good pieces and what we really need right now is a stud QB to get us out of this cycle of terrible to mediocre years we are in. The only way we are getting out of that cycle is to get a good QB who from year to year will perform at a consistently high level. Yes it is putting your eggs in one basket but we have already tried the other route since Marino left and its gotten us nowhere. So when being conservative fails year after year after year, its time to try something different. And if youre sure on it which Luck (and imo Barkley as well) are about as close to sure things as you get in the draft, then you sure as heck need to be bold about doing what it takes to get one of them. I dont care if it means trading the next 2 drafts for either player. We have supporting talent now get the main piece to the puzzle!
if this is really the compensation, forget it. if we are just talking about tossing one whole draft, i would do it, but this is bordering on insanity. this sounds like casino stuff not to mention that many are hoping to get a better drafter than Ireland. giving away this much, you will never see it happen.
Uhm, no. Here is why, all adding Luck would mean is you put a good Qb prospect on a bad team, the idea that adding a Luck covers up holes is not so because the idea is put forward that it would be true. Trade all of that for Luck, he misses, we are the Lions circa 04-10. Or to put it another way, even if Luck is quite good, it would still take yrs to recover from the package we gave for him. Peterson is a pro, so is Ireland, they will get the Qb situation solved, without putting us into the Lehman Brothers position in Fall of 08, just an unwinnable situation.
And keep in mind, those were mostly mid 20's picks, we could be worse, meaning those 3 #1's can easily be Top 10 2 of 3 yrs, possibly 3 of 3 yrs. Are you beginning to get the picture of how expensive and risky it would be to take that route? It is the easiest thing the world to say "do whatever it takes to land Luck!!!" Objectively looking at it, and that is ****ing insane. For example: 2011 #7 overall/mid 30's #2 pick 2012 easy Top 10 pick/mid 30's #2 pick 2013, probably mid first rd 15-19 or so/#2 in the mid 50's Why is it that folks just forget that the Colts picked #5 overall the yr after Manning started for them? And 2nd rd picks in the 30's are more or less late first rd picks.
I disagree bad team, great team no but bad? I dont thik so. Bush has looked good as has Dtrain. Fasano has shown great hands. Pouncey is the real deal. Long is all world. Marshall is a stud. We need a RT and a RG. Incognito is servicable. So needs come down to a RG and RT, a #2 wr, sorry but I think TE is ok with Clay and fasano, On defense trade some of that dline for a FS and move R Jones to SS to learn behind Bell. I strongly disagree with you this is a bad team. we need a big time qb. Moore played well as a result of this offense playing well not this offense started looking giood because MMoore elevated them.
Why would 2012 automatically be top 10? We are likely a 5 win team this year a Matt Moore/Henne combo. If Luck is even slightly better than Moore in his rookie year, and the defense plays as well as it has the last 6-7 games, we are probably an 8 to 10 win team, espescially given that we play the NFC West and a last place schedule overall.
"if" the more likely outcome is..."give him 3 yrs!" That is just far to much risk, basically 5 #1 picks in value? With an OL that is 2nd worst in the NFL, if you buy into that being a good move, there should never be a skinny salesmen in your neighborhood...you'll buy anything...
