Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
I don't care. I've spent too much time on message boards and heard too many stories about the detriment an on the surface innocuous "joke" can cause to just brush it off because in this one instance it's not a big deal.
I'm not trying to be a cowboy moderator or whatever, but words, heard to one's face or read off a screen, have an impact. Strictly my opinion but the type of statement you made is at the very least completely reckless. It has no place in civilized discussion. I'm not trying to get on the soapbox, but seriously, c'mon people; golden rule.
You guys can't be for real. You actually buy into it? Please tell me you don't REALLY believe that he's a 65 year old travelling producer who walks his dog with 25 kids follwing him around the monuments in Washington DC. BTW, I wouldn't have seen any of this if people would stop quoting him and circumventing my ignore list. All BlueNGold is doing is looking at his fake picture and pointing out a lie that gets more ridiculous by the day.
Peyton was sacked zero times last night behind that Broncos offensive line, as much as OlBlu likes to point out that Luck will get hurt here this year, then how could we have possibly expected Peyton to make it through this season? The offensive line was going to be garbage regardless and maybe even worse if we had kept Peyton's contract. It would have been a really poor way to send out Peyton IMO. Yes Peyton is great, but it is completely unfair to compare Luck to him right now, you guys know that deep down. I think OlBlu does too, honestly, a lot of his posts yesterday afternoon were very thoughtful on the subject as a whole.
I wish he would give Luck a chance, and not just "hate" him. Luck has done nothing other than perform at every level to earn his draft ranking.
If we want to be "mad" or "hate" anyone, as someone already mentioned, Polian is the guy who should have every finger pointing at him. He WASTED, our last half decade of early draft picks. I honestly can't think of many GMs that were worse than him in the whole league over his last 5 years here.
You make a lot of strong points. At worst, we would be 3-2 with Manning right now. Maybe even 4-1. We were going to lose the Chicago game with or without Manning I think. Manning would have carved up all of the easy teams on our schedule this year and we would have probably won 11 or 12 games with him, especially if we had used the number 1 pick to bring in a haul of assets.
I just don't buy all of this talk that it would have been some giant disservice of epic proportions to bring Peyton back to this allegedly abysmal Colts team. Would Peyton have been content with coming back to the Colts this season and beyond? I think that's an obvious yes. No question he wanted to end his career here. If it would have been good enough for him, then why do we as fans say that it would have been a disservice to do it? This current Colts team isn't as drastically bad as some make it out to be. We are 2-3 and have a good shot at going 3-3 with a rookie QB. Manning would have unleashed on all of the cupcake teams on our schedule.
TraderJoe, you make a good point about the O-Line potentially jeopardizing Manning's health. However, don't forget that the number 1 pick could have been used to bring in an obscene haul of assets which likely could have included lineman or picks to bring in lineman.
Olblu, you make lots of good points. However, I'm puzzled at how you can hate Irsay while at the same time you seem to absolve the Polians of any blame. Look at the Polian's drafting from 2007 onward. Crap draft after crap draft. It's as if Polian lost his touch immediately after we won the Super Bowl. Winning a Super Bowl was the last thing he needed on his resume', so it make sense to think that he began to let his son handle more things in the later years. Regardless, they did an absolutely horrible job the last 5 years they were here and are a huge reason why Manning is no longer on the roster. This team was completely ill-equipped to handle life without Manning. Why didn't we look at dumping Curtis Painter once it became clear in 2009 that he was awful?
I like Andrew Luck a lot and think he will have a great career here. However, I just don't get this whole mindset that it would have been armageddon for both the Colts franchise and Manning if we had brought him back.
Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-16-2012 at 09:58 AM.
I don't think that's true. The Manning decision was always going to be 100% on Irsay. It didn't really matter what anyone else thought. Make no mistake, the Polians were canned because the wheels came off last season.
To me that is a pretty big question mark to just hope that the assets we would have acquired with the number 1 pick would have fixed a lot of our issues.
I get that people miss Manning, heck if you go back to March on this board, I would have been fine with bringing Manning back and even letting Luck learn under him, but as I watch this team, I don't know. This is a bad football team IMO, yes maybe all those assets we get for the number 1 pick and Luck pan out, but maybe they don't. Was there a more sure fire pick in the draft than the Luck? Maybe that tackle from USC, but that's about it. There is a reason Luck has been touted so high for over two years now.
Luck deserves credit for that. At the start of his junior year, he was the sure fire number 1 pick, and even I predicted that as he stayed in college people would pick apart his game and start to find flaws. I thought ti would happen we almost always see it happen with "sure fire" number 1s. Someone always displaces them by the end of the season. Well Luck made it through his whole junior year without that happening. I thought it would happen AGAIN his senior year, that the more we saw Luck we would finally see something that made everyone say, this kid isn't quite as good as we think, but nope yet again, he was still number 1 at the end of his senior year, even after RGIII put an all out blitz on that pick. Luck was still the guy, and I don't think any other franchise would have played any differently than the way Colts did when it comes down to RGIII vs. Luck.
And now even as we sit in week 5 of his rookie year and people still keep trying to poke holes in his game, what has Luck done? Oh, only already lead two 4th quarter game winning drives in his first 5 games (should be 3, I think we can all agree it should be 3, his team let him down against Jacksonville, period), I mean think about this for a second two 4th quarter game winning drives in his first 5 games, when he did it agianst Minnesota, it had been over 40 years since someone had done that. That is incredible, that is HISTORY making. And while he's doing this, yes, maybe he hasn't been the best QB in the league, but his advanced QBR has been in the top 5 all season, his yards per game is also top 5, he is running perhaps the most advanced offensive scheme we have ever seen a rookie run, a downfield passing attack with lots of route options and reads that occasionally goes no huddle. His completion percentage needs to get better, I agree and understand that, but I also understand that his completion percentage is right in line with where Peyton was 6 games into his rookie career and that was running a much less complicated offense at the time with a better supporting cast particularly on the offensive line.
Yes, RGIII is great, I have never, ever denied this, back in April, I honestly did not care who we drafted between RGIII and Luck. I thought both were going to be great, part of me was excited at the prospect of RGIII even. I don't resent OlBlu for liking RGIII what I do resent is the insinuation that somehow RGIII is amazing while Luck sucks, because it is just not true or even based in reality. If they both keep up what they are doing all season it will probably be the two greatest rookie years for QBs EVER and it will happen in THE SAME YEAR. This is incredible on so many levels. even I thought it was a long shot 6 weeks ago, but it is really happening.
No one really thought we would be 2-3 right now. Heck, OlBlu didn't even think we would win 2 games all year. And a big reason we have those 2 wins is because of number 12. He's played like a vet in crunch time three times now, he has been brilliant in the two minute drill in every game. Give the kid some credit, he's not Peyton Manning right now, but he might be some day, and regardless of who you want to blame for the Manning thing, Luck is not the guy who should take it, because if it wasn't him sitting there at the number 1 pick, then it would have been RGIII.
Last edited by Trader Joe; 10-16-2012 at 10:17 AM.
Do you think all draft picks are big question marks, or just extra draft picks?
Even if it's a big question mark, you get more chances to make impactful selections. If you don't have faith in the front office, with extra picks, then their alloted amount should be even bigger question marks.
I think Luck is the better player when comparing just Luck and RGIII, but if it's RGIII+extra talent, I don't think Luck is THAT much better.
Edit: It will be interesting to see how much the Rams improve in the coming years.
Last edited by Gamble1; 10-16-2012 at 10:55 AM.
Since86 thinks you could get more than what you suggested Slick thats why he believes in trading back one selection.
The only way we could have gotten RGIII is if we would have drafted him with our number 1 pick. There was no feasible way to get RGIII + draft picks. St. Louis wouldn't have wanted our number one pick because they already have Sam Bradford on the roster. They would have then had a ton of money invested in two quarterbacks which obviously makes no sense whatsoever. Trading that second pick for a haul of assets (4 picks) from Washington was a much better option for them than giving us a bunch of stuff for a position they already had filled. Sam Bradford + four extra draft picks is better than Luck + Bradford minus four draft picks of your own. It's a difference of like 7 or 8 picks.
RGIII + draft picks might sound nice on paper, but it was impossible given the circumstances. You have to look at the team that had the number 2 pick and they had no use whatsoever for our number 1 pick.
BBS at Stampedeblue has always had a very condescending tone toward anyone who even remotely wanted to entertain the idea of retaining Manning:
He questions the competence of anyone who wanted to retain Manning, then follows it up with this gem:
Yes, better than Peyton was in 1998. Hell, he's better than Peyton was in 2000.
You can definitely say that Luck is a better rookie than Peyton for the simple reason that he shouldn't throw anywhere close to the 28 picks that Peyton threw. But saying Luck is currently better than Peyton in 2000 has to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.
Manning 2000 stats (third season): 33 TDS/15 INT, 4413 yds, 62.5% completion, 94.7 rating. Colts went 10-6.
Manning 1999 stats (second season): 26 TDS/15 INT, 4135 yds, 62.1% completion, 90.7 rating. Colts went 13-3
If Luck has a second and third season like that, I'll be doing cartwheels. I like Luck a lot, but BBS had no right calling Colts fans who wanted Manning back dumb when he is saying that Luck is currently better than a third year Manning who was hanging 33 TDs and a passer rating in the mid 90's.
It wasn't impossible. Arguing that it wouldn't have been easy is one thing, arguing it is completely impossible to do is totally different.
No doubt the FO would have to get creative, and it would most likely need more than one trade to happen, but that's not outside the realm of possbility. Just look at what StL did in the draft. They took their #2 pick, turned it into #6 with extra picks, then turned #6 into #14 and more extra picks.
Picks 2-7 were all traded due to teams jockeying for position to get the high talent left overs. Not only that but there were 19 trades total for just the first round last year, with 3 teams making multiple trades out of the 19 total trades.