Should Oliver Luck pull a power play on the Colts?

[Paintrain]

There are already rumblings that it won't be a happy pairing of Andrew Luck and Peyton Manning if the Colts try to draft Luck with Manning in the camp. Archie Manning has come out against the Colts trying to pick Luck with Manning coming back from his injury and has noted that he has talked to Oliver Luck, they are friends and former teammates so there's likely something to what he is saying from the Luck camp.

Here's my thought, Luck is in a no win situation REGARDLESS if he goes to the Colts. Let's assume that Manning is still there. That sets up a situation which will be awkward at best, at worst a waste of a couple of years for the #1 overall pick who is, as many scouts claim, the most pro ready QB since, well, Peyton Manning.

Let's now assume that Manning is gone. Say what you will about Manning but he is regarded as one of the top QB of this era and a sure fire Hall of Famer. With Aaron Rodgers being the exception, following in the footsteps of a legend is often difficult ground to traverse. Especially in today's environment of hyperactive media and outrageous fan expectations. That's going to be an almost impossible dual standard to live up to-Luck's hype already combined with replacing a legend. We see now that the Colts maybe a few drafts from being competitive again so is that the best situation to walk into?

As ugly as those "I don't want to play here" situations often appear at the time, they usually work out for the best so I won't be surprised if this spring we see the Luck family try to pull this. What do you think, should they?

[SmootSmack]

Won't matter when the Colts go on a 3 game winning streak passing the Vikings who will secure the first round pick and take Luck, then trade us Christian Ponder for our 3rd round pick and Niles Paul...

I think the Colts are kind of secretly hoping Manning retires

But as to your question. If they did try to pull that the pressure would be just as intense wherever he goes because it will be seen as "This guy think he's so good that even before he takes an NFL snap he thinks he can dictate where he plays. Well let's see what you got Eli...I mean, Andrew"

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Won't matter when the Colts go on a 3 game winning streak passing the Vikings who will secure the first round pick and take Luck, then trade us Christian Ponder for our 3rd round pick and Niles Paul...

I think the Colts are kind of secretly hoping Manning retires

But as to your question. If they did try to pull that the pressure would be just as intense wherever he goes because it will be seen as "This guy think he's so good that even before he takes an NFL snap he thinks he can dictate where he plays. Well let's see what you got Eli...I mean, Andrew"

I'm sure there will be some of that but for a QB starved market, I think that will subside rather quickly if he's successful. I mean today, how many of us when we think of Eli automatically go to his draft day? For Giants fans I'd think they love the trade, they won a Super Bowl and the Chargers haven't plus despite giving up what they did they are still perennially competitive. The Eli criticisms go much deeper than his pre-draft antics.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I'm sure there will be some of that but for a QB starved market, I think that will subside rather quickly if he's successful. I mean today, how many of us when we think of Eli automatically go to his draft day? For Giants fans I'd think they love the trade, they won a Super Bowl and the Chargers haven't plus despite giving up what they did they are still perennially competitive. The Eli criticisms go much deeper than his pre-draft antics.

Um, I do. Thats why I don't like him. Atleast a major reason. The other reason is I just don't think he's all that good. I'll catch flack I know but .... to me he's another Elway, he's only as good as his supporting cast. This year is prime example.

[JoeRedskin]

I don't see it happening. Does Luck have some incredible desire to play somewhere? Is he adamantly opposed to playing for Indi?

I think the "Following a legend" works just as well as forcing the issue. In addition, to Rogers, there is the Steve Young example (slightly different b/c he had played in the USFL). Quite frankly, with rookies and back-ups, you just don't know until you know.

If I am Indi, no way I trade out Luck unless there is an obscene offer on the table. As in, multiple number 1's, multiple picks this draft, etc. Manning is almost done, they are the ulitmate QB driven team, built to score points and play with a lead. It's the culture of the team.

If I am Luck, and I am confident of my ability, I am happy to sit for a year or two behind P.Manning, watch, and learn. The big money and wins will come, I'd rather go to a team used to winning but having an off year rather than a losing team that is counting on me to save them.

I am sure this will be stirred up but I think the announcement "With the first pick of the 2012 draft, the Indianapolis Colts choose Luck of Stanford" is a given.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I don't see it happening. Does Luck have some incredible desire to play somewhere? Is he adamantly opposed to playing for Indi?

I think the "Following a legend" works just as well as forcing the issue. In addition, to Rogers, there is the Steve Young example (slightly different b/c he had played in the USFL). Quite frankly, with rookies and back-ups, you just don't know until you know.

If I am Indi, no way I trade out Luck unless there is an obscene offer on the table. As in, multiple number 1's, multiple picks this draft, etc. Manning is almost done, they are the ulitmate QB driven team, built to score points and play with a lead. It's the culture of the team.

If I am Luck, and I am confident of my ability, I am happy to sit for a year or two behind P.Manning, watch, and learn. The big money and wins will come, I'd rather go to a team used to winning but having an off year rather than a losing team that is counting on me to save them.

I am sure this will be stirred up but I think the announcement "With the first pick of the 2012 draft, the Indianapolis Colts choose Luck of Stanford" is a given.

Any competitor would hurl at what I bolded. There's no way that anyone with a modicum of competitive spirit or pride will be fine with 'sitting for a year of two'. That's not how pro athletes are wired. As a competitor, don't plug me in to what's already winning, I want to be the guy who leads us out of the doldrums and into glory.

End of the day, the Colts will still likely draft him but don't you think the Luck family can make it very interesting and uncomfortable?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Any competitor would hurl at what I bolded. There's no way that anyone with a modicum of competitive spirit or pride will be fine with 'sitting for a year of two'. That's not how pro athletes are wired. As a competitor, don't plug me in to what's already winning, I want to be the guy who leads us out of the doldrums and into glory.

End of the day, the Colts will still likely draft him but don't you think the Luck family can make it very interesting and uncomfortable?

Are you a sports psychologist? A GM? Personally know a broad spectrum of professional players? If you do, okay. I'll accept your judgment. If not, based on my own second hand experiences and following sports and atheletes for 40 some odd years, I would suggest that many extremely competitive guys like to be plugged into a winning situation and are willing to wait their turn as long as the guy in front of them is succeeding. This is not to say these guys are not wanting the start but are willing "take one for the team". Rivers did it with Brees for 2 years, didn't like it, but wasn't divisive about it either - I think we can agree that Rivers is just a touch competitive.

Obviously, he would want to play. Obviously, he would want to win. I don't mean to say he would be blase about it or not give a damn, but sitting year or two behind Peyton Manning is different than sitting a year or two behind R. Grossman. If you truly want to be the best, don't you think - just maybe - he would want to see how the best plays? Maybe it's the maturity thing again and I'm looking at with the eyes of the "been there, done that" 40-something as opposed to my 24 year old self.

Don't plug you into a winner?? Oh please. You think these guys come out wanting to play for losing teams?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Are you a sports psychologist? A GM? Personally know a broad spectrum of professional players? If you do, okay. I'll accept your judgment. If not, based on my own second hand experiences and following sports and atheletes for 40 some odd years, I would suggest that many extremely competitive guys like to be plugged into a winning situation and are willing to wait their turn as long as the guy in front of them is succeeding. This is not to say these guys are not wanting the start but are willing "take one for the team". Rivers did it with Brees for 2 years, didn't like it, but wasn't divisive about it either - I think we can agree that Rivers is just a touch competitive.

Obviously, he would want to play. Obviously, he would want to win. I don't mean to say he would be blase about it or not give a damn, but sitting year or two behind Peyton Manning is different than sitting a year or two behind R. Grossman. If you truly want to be the best, don't you think - just maybe - he would want to see how the best plays? Maybe it's the maturity thing again and I'm looking at with the eyes of the "been there, done that" 40-something as opposed to my 24 year old self.

Don't plug you into a winner?? Oh please. You think these guys come out wanting to play for losing teams?

I do have experience with athletes and a degree in sports management plus 40 years of fandom as well, thanks for asking, but that's not the full basis of my point.

My point is that athletes want to play, succeed and win. They don't want to be 'along for the ride' on a winning team, they want to contribute. That's what separates the pros from the joes and the good from the great, the desire to be the best. I'm not saying that guys come out WANTING to play for losing teams per se but they would rather play immediately for a loser and try to turn them around than sit for a winner and not contribute anything.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I do have experience with athletes and a degree in sports management plus 40 years of fandom as well, thanks for asking, but that's not the full basis of my point.

My point is that athletes want to play, succeed and win. They don't want to be 'along for the ride' on a winning team, they want to contribute. That's what separates the pros from the joes and the good from the great, the desire to be the best. I'm not saying that guys come out WANTING to play for losing teams per se but they would rather play immediately for a loser and try to turn them around than sit for a winner and not contribute anything.

First, I was really asking about your experience to see if you had a different, and better, perspective than me and, if so, I would be more willing to accept your conclusions. If it came across differently, it was not meant to be so.

Secondly, and more to the point, I don't really disagree with your assertion that these guys come out wanting to play and are hard wired that way. At the same time, it has been my observation that some are mature enough to put their long term interests over their short term interests without losing that competitive burn. Sure he may be chomping at the bit to play, but maybe, just maybe, Luck sees the long term benefit of playing behind Manning for a year or two as opposed to coming into a poor situation where he is condemned to losing, possibly for the long term.

Really, I agree with your premise - these guys come out wanting, burning even, to play. AND, if we were talking about playing behind Grossman for a year or two, I would not expect Luck to be peachy with that. I am suggesting, however, that a Manning/Luck QB situation would be something special in and of itself and comparable to Montana/Young. Maybe Luck recognizes that and says - "Okay, I can deal with being behind Manning. I don't particularly like it, but I can deal with it." As I said, Rivers came in behind Brees and was a team player while still, clearly, burning to play.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I don't see it happening. Does Luck have some incredible desire to play somewhere? Is he adamantly opposed to playing for Indi?

I think the "Following a legend" works just as well as forcing the issue. In addition, to Rogers, there is the Steve Young example (slightly different b/c he had played in the USFL). Quite frankly, with rookies and back-ups, you just don't know until you know.

If I am Indi, no way I trade out Luck unless there is an obscene offer on the table. As in, multiple number 1's, multiple picks this draft, etc. Manning is almost done, they are the ulitmate QB driven team, built to score points and play with a lead. It's the culture of the team.

If I am Luck, and I am confident of my ability, I am happy to sit for a year or two behind P.Manning, watch, and learn. The big money and wins will come, I'd rather go to a team used to winning but having an off year rather than a losing team that is counting on me to save them.

I am sure this will be stirred up but I think the announcement "With the first pick of the 2012 draft, the Indianapolis Colts choose Luck of Stanford" is a given.

That's just not going to happen. The guy is going to want to start and play day one. Look at all the rookies that are playing now? Newton, Ponder, Gabbert and Dalton. If Rodgers was drafted by anyone else he would've been on the field much earlier.

[skinsfaninok]

Luck will not sit a year he's too good for that. Colts aren't trading Manning I'm still saying they will trade the 1st Pick or maybe do a SD With ELI type trade

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Luck will not sit a year he's too good for that. Colts aren't trading Manning I'm still saying they will trade the 1st Pick or maybe do a SD With ELI type trade

Who aside from Cle. has the ammunition to move up for him? The cost would be staggering.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

Who aside from Cle. has the ammunition to move up for him? The cost would be staggering.

If Cle or Us have the 3rd or 4th pick It won't be that much to move up

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

If Cle or Us have the 3rd or 4th pick It won't be that much to move up

That'd be amazing, and I would be on board if we could swing it, but I just can't see that happening (not that the FO makes decisions based on my approval, anyway... though they should). If the Colts were picking between Luck and Manning, I say they have to go Luck. The NFL is so much of a "what have you done for me lately" type league that I think Manning will be an afterthought in Indy next season.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

That'd be amazing, and I would be on board if we could swing it, but I just can't see that happening (not that the FO makes decisions based on my approval, anyway... though they should). If the Colts were picking between Luck and Manning, I say they have to go Luck. The NFL is so much of a "what have you done for me lately" type league that I think Manning will be an afterthought in Indy next season.

Would you do 3 first round picks if they were over 4 years? So 2012, 2013, 2015 for example?