Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

    I know that this issue has been debated to death over the last couple of years and that we have a playoff game to focus on right now. But there's a ton of good info in this article, so I felt compelled to start a new thread about it:


    Colts would have kept Peyton Manning and drafted Andrew Luck if former GM Bill Polian got his way


    In the period before Bill Polian was fired as Colts vice chairman after they went 2-14 without Peyton Manning in 2011, he went to team owner Jimmy Irsay with a quarterback plan.

    He suggested to Irsay that even though Manning was coming off serious neck surgery and missed the 2011 season that he pick up his $28 million option bonus and then with the first pick in the draft select Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck.

    Polian knew it would be a drain on the Colts’ salary cap, but he wanted to keep Manning — he obviously went on to make a full recovery from the surgery — and let Luck sit and learn from Manning.

    “Andrew would have backed him up for a couple of years,” Polian told the Daily News on Wednesday. “When the time was right, he would have stepped in. What the team around Andrew would have looked like at that point, given the salary-cap issues, was a question. It would have been tight, but it could have worked. It would have been my preference, but Jimmy still had final call.”

    Polian’s plan became moot when Irsay fired him and then the Colts pulled off the smoothest handoff in NFL history: Manning to Luck.

    Some teams search for generations and never find a franchise quarterback. They have the first overall pick and select Tim Couch, David Carr or JaMarcus Russell. The Colts had the good fortune to be terrible in the right years (1997 and 2011), allowing them to first take Manning in 1998 and Luck in 2012. They have gone from one of the greatest players in NFL history to the best young quarterback in the game.

    “They deserved good luck after what they went through in 1983,” Ernie Accorsi said Wednesday.

    Accorsi was the Colts general manager in 1983. He picked John Elway first overall, but he refused to play for coach Frank Kush, and owner Robert Irsay traded him one week later to the Broncos without Accorsi’s knowledge or approval. “When you look at the Colts franchise, they went from (Johnny) Unitas to Bert Jones, then end up with Peyton Manning and Luck,” Accorsi said.
    There was a time when Peyton Manning (l.) is the young Colts franchise quarterback.
    MICHAEL CONROY/AP
    There was a time when Peyton Manning (l.) is the young Colts franchise quarterback.

    In the final nine years Manning played for the Colts, he won four MVPs, went to two Super Bowls and the playoffs every year. “Suck for Luck,” became the battle cry in Indianapolis in 2011. The Colts took it seriously.

    Luck, considered the best quarterback prospect since Manning in 1998, was sitting right there for them with the first pick. The Colts cut Manning less than two months before the draft rather than pay him the option bonus and then handed the franchise over to Luck.

    Manning signed with Denver and will face the Chargers in the divisional round on Sunday. Luck goes against Tom Brady and the Patriots on Saturday night in Foxborough. If they both win, they face each other in the AFC title game on Jan. 19 in Denver.

    RELATED: MEHTA: LUCK LOOKING LIKE ALL-TIME GREAT WITH COLTS

    “I’m sure they didn’t want to go 2-14,” Accorsi said. “What happens if they go 2-14 and there is no quarterback? People have good luck and bad luck. In this business, you have a tendency to dwell on the heartbreak. It just broke well for them. God bless them. Luck is some quarterback.”

    Manning was the starter the opening game of his rookie year against Dan Marino, who was nearing the end of his career. He retired after the 1999 season. In the 14 seasons after Marino, the Dolphins have started 17 different quarterbacks. It started with Jay Fiedler and now they hope they have found their guy in Ryan Tannehill, picked seven spots after Luck in 2012.

    Tannehill has started all 32 games in his two seasons, but has yet to make the playoffs.

    In between, the Dolphins started such stars as A.J. Feeley, Gus Frerotte, Joey Harrington, Daunte Culpepper, John Beck and Chad Henne. The Colts stink for one year and get the best quarterback prospect in more than a decade. It almost isn’t fair.
    When the Colts decided to send Manning packing, it made way for Andrew Luck.
    Andy Lyons/Getty
    When the Colts decided to send Manning packing, it made way for Andrew Luck.

    “It’s just serendipity,” Polian said. “It just happens.”

    The 49ers went from Joe Montana to Steve Young, but the circumstances were different. Bill Walsh traded for Young in 1987, but he didn’t take over as the starter until 1991 when Montana was out with an elbow injury. The Packers went from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers, but Rodgers was a late first-round pick who sat on the bench for three seasons until Favre retired, unretired and then was traded to the Jets.

    Polian said the Colts “were in the right place at the right time,” to get Luck. “More power to them.”

    He revealed that if he knew how serious Manning’s neck injury was at the time of the 2011 draft, he would have taken either Colin Kaepernick or Andy Dalton in the first round.

    “We loved them both,” he said.

    That, of course, means Luck probably wouldn’t be in Indianapolis.

    But because of the lockout, the Colts and their trainers could not have any contact with Manning from March 12 to July 25. When the Colts realized later in camp that Manning was not going to be ready for the season — he eventually needed surgery — Polian had to scramble. He talked Kerry Collins out of retirement, he got hurt in the third game, then the Colts went with Curtis Painter and Dan Orlovsky.

    That led to 2-14 and a little bit of luck.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/fo...#ixzz2pxQoGfAU


    Great article with a lot of interesting quotes from Polian that I've never heard before.

    His idea, which was to keep Manning and draft Luck, was by far the worst option out there, IMO. The Colts either had to go all in on Manning or all in on Luck. Keeping both would have been a giant disservice to both. We either had to trade the pick for a haul of assets to make one more run with Manning, or we had to completely cut ties and draft Luck. Luck wouldn't have just backed up Peyton for a "couple" of years as Polian says. Peyton has already played a "couple" of years post-injury and I don't think he's hanging it up any time soon. Those "couple" of years would have turned into 4-5 years when all was said and done. I seriously doubt that Luck would have patiently waited until he was 27 years old to take an NFL snap. His camp would have politely requested a trade had the Colts kept Manning.

    Also, I wonder how serious Polian was about Kaepernick and Dalton, or if this is just a classic case of Polian embellishing things to make himself look like a genius? I remember in 2011 when colts.com had an article about Marvin Harrison getting inducted into the Ring of Honor. Polian, who was the Panthers GM in 1996, said that he wanted to draft Harrison at the time. But as he tells it, the Colts drafted Harrison before Carolina picked. The only problem with his story is that Carolina actually drafted before the Colts in 1996 and passed on Harrison. Over the years, Polian has twisted it around into this tale about how he knew immediately that Harrison would be a HOF WR after watching him workout. I don't think he would have drafted Tim Biakabutuka over Harrison if that had been the case.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-09-2014, 09:33 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

    I think this was all revisionist history on Polian's part. Sure its believable Polian would've supported Manning regardless after all he did draft the guy and it started his career as a Colts GM.

    However if he values his job(which I'm sure he did) and it came to drafting Luck and dumping Manning in the process to do so? He would've no doubt about it so any lip service he provides is just that.

    I also don't buy he'd draft Kaepernick or Dalton either otherwise he would've. Instead as far as a QB not named Manning he drafted his name was Curtis Painter...

    I think that says it all.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

      Interesting.

      I don't believe for a second Polian would have drafted Dalton or Kaepernick, he's just trying to look good. This is the same guy that got on the Spurs for resting their starters. Said he would never do something like that. The guy is a troll.

      I still think if Polian was in charge still he would have drafted RGIII just to go against what everyone is saying is the right pick. So he can look like the "genius" in the room.

      So glad Polian and his minions are gone. He belongs on ESPN, he ballwashed ESPN over the local guys here, didn't he? Would grant Jaws an interview and shun the locals. ****** thing to do.
      Super Bowl XLI Champions
      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

        Yeah it's pretty safe to say that Andrew isn't a bench warmer. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I think it was maybe the most difficult decisions ever made in sports history, but Irsay got it right. I will admit that sometimes it still eats at me, Peyton is kind of like the ex girlfriend that you wish never got away, even though your happy with your current girlfriend.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

          I agree that who knows what Polian would've really done but I bet drafting Luck wasn't one of them because he couldn't do what everyone and his brother were saying to do. Drafting RGIII sounds about right... as does not drafting a QB at all and sticking with Painter and putting all his eggs in the Manning basket again.

          And let's not forget Polian's selective memory about what he would've done about drafting Harrison back in the day. After that, and everything else piled on, Polian has zero credibility in talking about what he would've done. What he says he would've done would be whatever hindsight now tells him would be the best answer. ...Even if reality and a little fact checking shows he's full of s---.

          The only real certainty about what he would've done would be to rest assured he wouldn't have done the thing that media and locals were clamoring for and would have stubbornly went another direction just to show people he will not bow to popular opinion and try and prove himself smarter than everyone else.

          What he proved was his arrogance and stubbornness led him to the firing line. He should've been fired years ago.

          And these are the nice things I can say about him!
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "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."

          -John Wooden

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

            I believe him about Dalton. I remember that rumor before that draft.

            Keeping Manning and drafting Luck would have been so, so dumb though.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

              It would be an almost untenable situation, Polian.
              Never forget

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

                Where's Jay Mohr ??

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

                  Keeping Luck and Manning would have been a disaster. We would have so much money tied up in the QB post it would have been ridiculous. The rookie scale helps a bit, but Manning was making a ton and Luck was still the first overall pick. We would have had to make all the cap moves that Grigs did and probably more and the team would have still be gutted leaving with Manning a worse team to try and drag into the playoffs coming off such major injury. Could we have brought Reggie back with those two on the roster?

                  This would have been a bad idea as well because it would hurt Luck's development. Manning is such a maniac does anyone really see him taking the time to work with Luck and letting him get snaps at all? Manning would hog all the snaps and probably feel bothered by the idea of training his replacement. Some QBs need a year to ride the bench and just learn from a vet. Luck is not one of those QBs and needed to learn under fire.

                  Now lets say we did draft Luck and we still have Manning this season. Manning still looks at the top of his game. How much longer do you allow Manning to lead the team before you turn it over to Luck? Are you really going to sit Luck for three seasons? How do you rationalize it with a fanbase that adores Manning that it is a good move to cut Manning and turn it over to this unproven rookie? The best thing to happen to Luck was he came in and took the ball running from the get go. Having to replace Manning coming off two good seasons would have been a disaster.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

                    As someone who argued the merits of keeping Manning and trading the pick for a massive haul, keeping both should have been a fireable offense alone. Those who sit on the fence, get a sore crotch. They either needed to go all in for the last stretch of Peyton's career or start anew, not straddle both.
                    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Where's Jay Mohr ??
                      "fat shaming" Alyssa Milano

                      At least that's all I hear in the news anyways.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

                        Bill Polian loves to revise history with 20-20 hindsight.

                        If you allow me the same, the only scenario that is even arguably as good as the path you took would have been to keep Peyton, trade for a haul of 5 or so high draft picks (if even possible) then use a high 3rd rounder to pick Russell Wilson. Peyton in Indy with 4 more good players and Wilson in the wings would be tempting.

                        But I think that 2 years from now you would still rather have A Luck.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

                          Polian wants to always make Polian look as smart as possible, thus he's trying to play both sides of the fence here. With as great as Peyton has looked post-injury, Polian definitely doesn't want to say that he would have been in favor of dumping Manning. Also, he's biased towards Manning because his entire Indy tenure was with Manning and they won a Super Bowl. Completely understandable. But with as great as Luck has looked, Polian also doesn't want to say that he would have been in favor of letting a phenom like that get away. Therefore, he's trying to play both sides here so that he can make himself look smart, but in reality his idea would have been the dumbest one possible.

                          Maybe he did want to draft Dalton or Kaepernick, I don't know. That's a pretty easy thing to say at this point though. After his BS Marvin Harrison story from a few years ago, I'm a little skeptical of anything this guy says that involves hindsight. He is prone to bend the truth a bit to make himself look like a genius.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

                            LOL at him saying he thinks he could have made it work with both Manning and Luck and the salary situation...yeah right. Every time he opens his mouth now he makes you wonder more and more how he ever won.


                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Polian wanted to keep Manning and draft Luck

                              Keeping both was never an option, as has been well said already. The only options were trading the pick and loading up on a bunch of young assets, or drafting Luck. Neither answer was wrong. The Colts were really in a win-win situation, with the only wrong answer being keep Manning and draft Luck.

                              Comment

                              Previous template Next
                              Working...
                              X