After the beat-down the Texans laid down on the Colts in week 1, a few people mentioned their chance at the Andrew Luck sweepstakes...and were soundly dismissed by those who argued the Colts weren't going to be a dismal team just because they've lost one guy. Well...week 2 they lost to the freaking Browns, who by the way lost to the freaking Bengals in week one, who by the way lost to the freaking Broncos in week 2. So, it seems Manning really was that important, and the Colts really are that bad. The Spurs comparisons have been made, but how valid do they seem right now? I mean, D-Rob goes down for one stinking year, the one year Duncan happened to come out of college, and four NBA championships later, the Spurs....god, I hate the Spurs. Manning happens to go down this one year, the year Luck just so happens to be coming out of college, and ________ later, the Colts....god, I hate the Colts. Here we go again? Why does this always have to happen to teams in Houston's division?
Sorry, I'm going to have to thread derail when I get home. I'm going to post nothing but Andrew luck pictures, and pictures of him in throw back dynamo jerseys and stuff like that. Imma post pics of the pacific ocean and a stupid tree. It has to be done.
The beauty of the Tim Duncan thing was that, the next year, they had both Duncan and Robinson on the field. But if the Colts have a terrible roster without Manning, then just replace Manning with Luck is just like any other crappy team getting Andrew Luck. For the comparison to work, the Colts have to have a good, competitive roster without Manning, or they need to be able to have Manning and Luck on the field at the same time.
but the specific comparison still doesn't work. Manning and Luck won't play at the same time. The more apt concern here is simply that the Colts will likely be bad, will likely get a high draft pick, and will likely have good quarterback next year. That quarterback may be Luck, but one would assume that means Manning is on his way out in a trade that nets a solid asset. And if it's not luck, Manning - who is a top 3 quarterback (if healthy) is back, and the Colts have beefed up their squad with whatever top pick they've taken. I of course don't know the severity of Peyton's injury. If it seems likely he will come back healthy and can still contribute for multiple years, it's hard to see the Colts taking Luck if they got the #1 pick. I could be wrong, but you never know. But it would still be a bad situation for the Texans, as the Colts likely then trade down only a few spots while picking up another top pick.
I agree with this... that's a pretty big difference. It's similar though in that one key injury has made a (previously) good team look bad... terrible quarterback play tends to do that, but the NFL is so much different from the NBA in simply the number of players on the field and on your payroll. Roster size is 15 in the NBA, 53 in the NFL. Starting players -- 5 in the NBA, 22 in the NFL. Plus, in the NBA you can get "lucky" and "win" the top pick even by being an average to mediocre team. In the NFL, you have to be the very worst by record. So in the NBA, one player can make all the difference -- look at the franchises that drafted Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose and how quickly that turned around. In the NFL, while quarterback play is indeed important, it still takes poor play at a lot of key positions to be the very worst team in football and land the #1 pick. Point being that I echo Major's thought: If the Colts get the #1 pick, they probably have bigger problems than quarterback.
Personally, I think the Chiefs are in the lead for the Luck sweepstakes. They look horrible with 3 of their best players out for the season.
Replacing manning is like replacing lebron. You would trade up trade two or three no 1 picks for them.
I just want to say, I played against Luck when he was a freshman on the JV and I was a junior. xD I wasn't a very good football player at all, but I started on defense against him in that game, and now he looks like a #1 pick LOL
Cool story, bro. I once had an open-field tackle on James Starks, and I'm slower than molasses. I got lucky an tripped him up. I know there's a bit of difference, but still cool. I think there are a lot of stories like this on Clutchfans.:grin:
I say kansas city will get Andrew Luck, they got outscored 89-10 by the bills and detroit! and now without Jamaal, they are going to suck. I think the colts will pick a WR, even if they have the 1st pick.
Luck is going #1 no matter what. The Colts will trade the pick for a king's ransom if they don't want to draft Luck.
football is cut throat. If I were the Colts, and landed the first pick, I'd go with Luck or ask for a Vikings type package. he has a damn broken neck man. I know Manning has a four year contract, but it's the NFL. Dump it. I'd sit Luck for a year. Let him watch Manning. And if this is the case. This sucks for the Texans. Had to put up with a decade of Manning, and then a decade of Luck.
why are people thinking the Colts would end up with the #1 pick? I think the Chiefs are sucking hard, no Charles, no Berry, they are screwed.
don't understand why people are so afraid of the Colts drafting Luck. how many "can't miss, once in a lifetime players" actually live up to the hype? Luck is more likely to be a bust than a Hall of Famer.
The Chiefs are getting Luck. It will be awesome to see a QB from my high school lead my favorite NFL team to 5 Super Bowl victories.
edit: next time i'll read the whole post as been stated, one player can make a bigger difference in bball, and for that reason i don't feel tanking is worth it. i would much rather tank for a player like suh, who has a bigger chance to pan out and has more impact that probably 25 starting qbs
