Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

That is, that the Dolts could trade Peyton Manning in the event that they draft Andrew Luck.

I see problems with that. I'm old school, so I don't like the idea of handing the reins to a rookie. Ideally, I like about a three-to-four year apprenticeship under the old master before throwing a kid to the wolves, so to speak. There are very few people who can survive that as Troy Aikman did. (Many don't remember the beating he took his rookie year, just his Super Bowls.)

To be fair to Dungy, however, he later modified his remarks by saying that LUCK becomes the trade bait if Manning looks as if he'll play another three to four years. Unfortunately, that's the perfect scenario for old school guys like me.

That said, if the Dolts fail to address their OL and defensive woes, Luck could very well force their hand by following the example set by fellow Stanford alum John Elway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dungy-co ... ng-2011-10

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/71423 ... trade-bait

SuperHornet wrote:That is, that the Dolts could trade Peyton Manning in the event that they draft Andrew Luck.

I see problems with that. I'm old school, so I don't like the idea of handing the reins to a rookie. Ideally, I like about a three-to-four year apprenticeship under the old master before throwing a kid to the wolves, so to speak. There are very few people who can survive that as Troy Aikman did. (Many don't remember the beating he took his rookie year, just his Super Bowls.)

To be fair to Dungy, however, he later modified his remarks by saying that LUCK becomes the trade bait if Manning looks as if he'll play another three to four years. Unfortunately, that's the perfect scenario for old school guys like me.

That said, if the Dolts fail to address their OL and defensive woes, Luck could very well force their hand by following the example set by fellow Stanford alum John Elway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dungy-co ... ng-2011-10

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/71423 ... trade-bait

Why would they trade Peyton? Luck could sit and LEARN behind one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game.

grizzaholic wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:That is, that the Dolts could trade Peyton Manning in the event that they draft Andrew Luck.

I see problems with that. I'm old school, so I don't like the idea of handing the reins to a rookie. Ideally, I like about a three-to-four year apprenticeship under the old master before throwing a kid to the wolves, so to speak. There are very few people who can survive that as Troy Aikman did. (Many don't remember the beating he took his rookie year, just his Super Bowls.)

To be fair to Dungy, however, he later modified his remarks by saying that LUCK becomes the trade bait if Manning looks as if he'll play another three to four years. Unfortunately, that's the perfect scenario for old school guys like me.

That said, if the Dolts fail to address their OL and defensive woes, Luck could very well force their hand by following the example set by fellow Stanford alum John Elway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dungy-co ... ng-2011-10

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/71423 ... trade-bait

Why would they trade Peyton? Luck could sit and LEARN behind one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game.

Certainly worked for Aaron Rodgers.

Grizalltheway wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Why would they trade Peyton? Luck could sit and LEARN behind one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game.

Certainly worked for Aaron Rodgers.

Who? Oh, the guy who just won the big game and is out to a 7-0 start.

Wise investment to draft a kid #1 and have him sit & watch for an extended period of time?? After watching the Colts play defense last night, drafting Luck & sitting him would be a big mistake.

bluehenbillk wrote:Wise investment to draft a kid #1 and have him sit & watch for an extended period of time?? After watching the Colts play defense last night, drafting Luck & sitting him would be a big mistake.

Not if Manning comes back 100%. He still has a few good seasons left.

manning was one of those young guys thrown in after being drafted wasn't he? I also don't think it too long for Brady to be in. I don't have a problem with the idea of sitting a guy for a bit to learn some shit but it works as much as the other way works it would appear.

I've got a feeling they know better what to do than we do.

If I'm the Colts and I get the #1 pick I draft Luck and plan two years behind Manning getting him in as much as I can during blowouts to get him actual game time. I go into 2014 training camp telling Luck the job is his to win if he can win it. If he wins it I give Manning to option to back him up and be a mentor or to explore a trade elsewhere.

Manning will be 38 going into the 2014 training camp and has had several surgerys lately, so by no means is he a lock to stay healthy.

There is no way I use Luck as trade bait. Cant afford to do that with Manning's age.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:manning was one of those young guys thrown in after being drafted wasn't he? I also don't think it too long for Brady to be in. I don't have a problem with the idea of sitting a guy for a bit to learn some shit but it works as much as the other way works it would appear.

I've got a feeling they know better what to do than we do.

He was, and I think Luck is smart enough (architecture major at Stanford ) and talented enough to do the same.
And, he probably will if he ends up with Miami.

bluehenbillk wrote:Wise investment to draft a kid #1 and have him sit & watch for an extended period of time?? After watching the Colts play defense last night, drafting Luck & sitting him would be a big mistake.

If the Dolts keep playing that kind of defense, Luck won't have a chance. They have to rebuild that OL (except maybe for the perennial all-star C Jeff Saturday) to make sure Luck survives, too. Painter was getting his head handed to him yesterday. That's more likely to happen, too, if he's constantly playing from behind because the D is playing crap ball. It's not Freeney's fault, though. He's still playing balls to the wall. The LBers and secondary have GOT to get a SERIOUS upgrade.

As a Dolphins fan, we NEED Luck.

The fact that Indy is purposely tanking their season to get him is flat out ridiculous.

two thoughts

1. manning, coming back off a neck injury... while there are teams that might... who deals for that contract with his health issues?

2. why not let him back up for a year or two to learn from a hall of famer?

DSUrocks07 wrote:As a Dolphins fan, we NEED Luck.

The fact that Indy is purposely tanking their season to get him is flat out ridiculous.

i dont buy that they are tanking the season, they just arent good without Manning.

Injuries suck but oh well...

If the admiral wasnt hurt that season back in 199whatever, the Celtics woulda likely had Tim Duncan, but shit happens.

DSUrocks07 wrote:As a Dolphins fan, we NEED Luck.

The fact that Indy is purposely tanking their season to get him is flat out ridiculous.

Grizalltheway wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:As a Dolphins fan, we NEED Luck.

The fact that Indy is purposely tanking their season to get him is flat out ridiculous.

Seconded.

So it's OK for the Fish to tank but not Indy?

UNHWildCats wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:As a Dolphins fan, we NEED Luck.

The fact that Indy is purposely tanking their season to get him is flat out ridiculous.

i dont buy that they are tanking the season, they just arent good without Manning.

Injuries suck but oh well...

If the admiral wasnt hurt that season back in 199whatever, the Celtics woulda likely had Tim Duncan, but **** happens.

Yeah but 62-7 bad??? Blowing 4th quarter leads bad?? If they are THIS bad without Manning that says a hell of a lot more about their ownership than anything.

SuperHornet wrote:So it's OK for the Fish to tank but not Indy?

No the difference is that we have been this bad for YEARS, Henne has been mediocre and he was injured we have Reggie f****** Bush as our starting RB. I don't condone tanking at all. I want the Dolphins to win every single game that they play...I also want them to fire Tony Sunglasses, and actually show some f****** heart. I feel sorry for this team. If anything I want Luck to give us all the finger and go back to Stanford for his senior season.

DSUrocks07 wrote:If anything I want Luck to give us all the finger and go back to Stanford for his senior season.

Given the state of the league, there's a VERY good chance that this might happen. At the very least, he might just refuse to sign with the team that picks him #1, forcing them to trade him a la John Smell-Way.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: i dont buy that they are tanking the season, they just arent good without Manning.

Injuries suck but oh well...

If the admiral wasnt hurt that season back in 199whatever, the Celtics woulda likely had Tim Duncan, but **** happens.

Yeah but 62-7 bad??? Blowing 4th quarter leads bad?? If they are THIS bad without Manning that says a hell of a lot more about their ownership than anything.

their offense is non existent which means their defense is on the field more and their defense has never really been good and when you mix all that with playing a great team like New Orleans, than yes, 62-7 can happen.

Another important point is, who could afford Manning these days anyways, or would he be willing to take a pay cut? The tradeoff of getting Andrew Luck and losing a Hall of Famer is a bit out there. I mean, Manning means a lot to the team and the whole Colts business as a whole. Does anybody buy more jerseys, more memorabilia, more Manning merchandise. I mean come on , Curtis Painter?

Andrew Luck is a risk. Read this:

San Francisco 49ers defensive tackle Ricky Jean Francois(notes) plays for former Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh and was a college teammate of the No. 1 pick in the 2007 NFL draft, JaMarcus Russell(notes), so he has plenty of opinions about current Stanford star, and projected top-draft pick, Andrew Luck. And -- surprise, surprise -- the SEC product thinks the Pac-12 QB is overrated because of a lack of good competition.

I think Ricky makes a very good point.

UNHWildCats wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
Yeah but 62-7 bad??? Blowing 4th quarter leads bad?? If they are THIS bad without Manning that says a hell of a lot more about their ownership than anything.

their offense is non existent which means their defense is on the field more and their defense has never really been good and when you mix all that with playing a great team like New Orleans, than yes, 62-7 can happen.

For once...Travis makes a good point.


Manning is out there eating up 35-40 seconds of every play clock...calling every single play at the LOS as he sees fit (And no one in the league studies more film than him...including pretty much every coach). That keeps the defense off the field - a defense which has been known as bad for quite some time. Without Manning the offense has no rhythm, no tempo, no anything. There is a lot of talent on the team, but when a team has relied on what Manning brings to the table for as long as the Colts have it can and will get this bad.


There isn't one player in the league that has as much of an impact on their team as Manning does with the Colts....he should have been winning the MVP every year....fuck...he should win it this year as it is very apparent who the Most VALUABLE Player in the league is....

clenz wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: their offense is non existent which means their defense is on the field more and their defense has never really been good and when you mix all that with playing a great team like New Orleans, than yes, 62-7 can happen.

For once...Travis makes a good point.


Manning is out there eating up 35-40 seconds of every play clock...calling every single play at the LOS as he sees fit (And no one in the league studies more film than him...including pretty much every coach). That keeps the defense off the field - a defense which has been known as bad for quite some time. Without Manning the offense has no rhythm, no tempo, no anything. There is a lot of talent on the team, but when a team has relied on what Manning brings to the table for as long as the Colts have it can and will get this bad.


There isn't one player in the league that has as much of an impact on their team as Manning does with the Colts....he should have been winning the MVP every year....fuck...he should win it this year as it is very apparent who the Most VALUABLE Player in the league is....

I was joking last Sunday night that this season proves they should go back and award Peyton the MVP retro-actively for the last 10 years - as it's now VERY obvious just HOW important he truly is to the Colts.

grizzaholic wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:That is, that the Dolts could trade Peyton Manning in the event that they draft Andrew Luck.

I see problems with that. I'm old school, so I don't like the idea of handing the reins to a rookie. Ideally, I like about a three-to-four year apprenticeship under the old master before throwing a kid to the wolves, so to speak. There are very few people who can survive that as Troy Aikman did. (Many don't remember the beating he took his rookie year, just his Super Bowls.)

To be fair to Dungy, however, he later modified his remarks by saying that LUCK becomes the trade bait if Manning looks as if he'll play another three to four years. Unfortunately, that's the perfect scenario for old school guys like me.

That said, if the Dolts fail to address their OL and defensive woes, Luck could very well force their hand by following the example set by fellow Stanford alum John Elway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dungy-co ... ng-2011-10

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/71423 ... trade-bait

Why would they trade Peyton? Luck could sit and LEARN behind one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game.

Well with all due respect Manning didn't sit his rookie yr the Colts got rid of Jim Harbaugh and automatically handed the reins over to Manning