Should Oliver Luck pull a power play on the Colts?

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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

Paintrain, are you actually Bruce Allen seeking my approval?

So realistically, we would only be giving 2 first rounders (2013 and 2015). Hell, I'd do that.

[skinsfaninok]

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.

Manning will never be an after thought in Indy but Yes I agree w you, I'd take Luck also but theres a chance we do it..

Trade our 1st and next years 1st.. I'd do it

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Manning will never be an after thought in Indy but Yes I agree w you, I'd take Luck also but theres a chance we do it..

Trade our 1st and next years 1st.. I'd do it

Afterthought was probably an inappropriate word choice, but I think he would quickly be overshadowed by the new franchise savior.

[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.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

Paintrain, are you actually Bruce Allen seeking my approval?

So realistically, we would only be giving 2 first rounders (2013 and 2015). Hell, I'd do that.

Nah, Vinny.

I would give away firsts and seconds for the rest of the decade if I was still around!

[skinsfan69]

The window has closed on the Colts. If I'm them I'm trading Manning for draft picks. Manning has some good years left if he can get healthy. If Joe Montana can get traded then so can Peyton Manning. I think that's what's going to happen. Some takers for Manning? How about the Jets?? His old coaches are already there. KC?? Miami?? Denver??

[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.

[Chico23231]

Archie is already pulling the power play. Peyton is talking directly to the media through his father letting his opinion known, he doesnt want Luck here.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Archie is already pulling the power play. Peyton is talking directly to the media through his father letting his opinion known, he doesnt want Luck here.

Yep

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Archie is already pulling the power play. Peyton is talking directly to the media through his father letting his opinion known, he doesnt want Luck here.

you are absolutely right, which should make for an amazingly action packed offseason.

[KI Skins Fan]

I dunno, I think that the Luck and Manning clans might be working together to get what they want. It seems that Peyton Manning doesn't want Andrew Luck in Indy any more than Luck wants to play behind Manning. Together, the two players could exert powerful leverage on the Colts.

The Colts could be in a bad spot here, for several reasons. First, the Colts owe Peyton a huge bonus before the start of the 2012 League Year, which means that the Colts cannot trade him prior to paying him that bonus. If they were to trade Peyton after they pay him the bonus, they would take huge cap hits for the next two seasons for a star player who isn't even on their roster. It would be unthinkable for the Colts to cut a healthy Manning and get nothing for him, so the bonus is a big problem for the Colts.

The first question might be "What would Peyton want in order to amend his contract to change the due date of his bonus to a date that would allow the Colts to trade him?" If they can work that out with Manning, the Colts might be able to get away with trading him for a king's ransom.

That would clear the way for them to draft Luck, if Luck wants to play in Indy. But Luck could indeed refuse to report to Indy if he is drafted by them and thereby force their hand (See page 1 of the Eli Manning playbook for details). So, it's not unreasonable to think that the Colts may determine that paying Manning and trading out of the #1 spot is in their best interest.

[skinsfaninok]

Archie is letting the colts know now that Peyton doesn't want Luck in INDY so make your decision soon

[saden1]

What's with all this crazy talk? Luck would the dumbest QB ever to not play behind a legend on his last leg and an injury away from the morgue. There no better fountain of knowledge to learn from than Manning. No matter what he is the future of any org that picks him and from the looks of it Luck should worry more about Barkley being picked #1 over all.

[SmootSmack]

How about...the Saints fail to sign Drew Brees this off-season...and Peyton Manning goes to New Orleans

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

I dunno, I think that the Luck and Manning clans might be working together to get what they want. It seems that Peyton Manning doesn't want Andrew Luck in Indy any more than Luck wants to play behind Manning. Together, the two players could exert powerful leverage on the Colts.

The Colts could be in a bad spot here, for several reasons. First, the Colts owe Peyton a huge bonus before the start of the 2012 League Year, which means that the Colts cannot trade him prior to paying him that bonus. If they were to trade Peyton after they pay him the bonus, they would take huge cap hits for the next two seasons for a star player who isn't even on their roster. It would be unthinkable for the Colts to cut a healthy Manning and get nothing for him, so the bonus is a big problem for the Colts.

The first question might be "What would Peyton want in order to amend his contract to change the due date of his bonus to a date that would allow the Colts to trade him?" If they can work that out with Manning, the Colts might be able to get away with trading him for a king's ransom.

That would clear the way for them to draft Luck, if Luck wants to play in Indy. But Luck could indeed refuse to report to Indy if he is drafted by them and thereby force their hand (See page 1 of the Eli Manning playbook for details). So, it's not unreasonable to think that the Colts may determine that paying Manning and trading out of the #1 spot is in their best interest.

Not to play conspiracy theorist or anything, but I think you are right that there is some collusion on the part of the Manning and Luck families. This offseason may be more interesting than last summers condensed FA period due to this story alone (and the fact that the Skins have been linked to both players).