PDA

View Full Version : Let's say the Colts win next week...


Phins827
12-23-2011, 07:13 AM
Assuming the Vikings and Rams both, as expected, lose out. Does either team take Andrew Luck? Or do you see a trade there? What about TWO trades? With teams trading up with both teams for Andrew Luck, and followed by a trade up for Robert Griffin?

I'm just looking for opinions in this situation, because I honestly have no idea. I expect it to be interesting if it does happen.

BeerBaron
12-23-2011, 07:55 AM
If there is a full blown new staff in St. Louis, I have to think that they'd at least consider it. There would be no attachment to Bradford and anyone who would look stupid for the team giving up on him already would be gone.

I think the Vikings would also give it some consideration, though I think they'd be less likely to actually take him than the Rams would. Ponder has shown a few flashes of potential and has a significantly cheaper contract thanks to the rookie salary structure, making more economic sense to keep him around.

I think both teams would definitely be more likely to listen to trade offers than the Colts would as well. If they could get a team to give up several picks this year as well as at least a 1st the next year, they'd be interested.

And all that is of course assuming neither the Rams nor Vikings wins again. Both would have to lose out while the Colts win against the Jags because the Colts would hold any strength of schedule tiebreakers. (Terrible way to determine a top pick IMO. If there is a tie for the first pick, as that is the only pick I'd do this for, there should at least be a coin flip or lottery or something....I hate SoS as a tiebreaker which could determine the fates of franchises for years to come.)

jth1331
12-23-2011, 08:08 AM
I'd honestly see either the Vikings or Rams holding the pick ransom and getting a nice haul, especially with Barkley not declaring.

Brent
12-23-2011, 08:43 AM
I would prefer to keep Luck out of the NFC West, so if the Rams have the pick, am I guessing they will being looking to trade.

noondog
12-23-2011, 09:31 AM
The Rams are in a tricky spot. Bradford is only finishing up his second year as a pro and has the skill set needed to become at least a top 10 QB. I find the notion of the Rams giving up on him to grab Luck to be unlikely. What they need to do is take an elite playmaker (Blackmon) to help Bradford out. Trading down from 1 to say 2 or 3 with Indy to facilitate this would make the most sense to me. Kalil would also be a very viable option too considering Jason Smith's struggles and the need to keep Bradford upright.

In Minnesota, I think the best possible scenario if they finish with the #1 pick is to draft Luck and shop Ponder with the intent of getting a 1st rounder in return so the team can address other positions with quality talent. Ponder has shown flashes of promise and would be a more known commodity with less risk for a QB-hungry team then drafting a Landry Jones type. I take Luck and trade Ponder because there is a significant step-up in overall skill set with Luck over Ponder and the potential reward outweighs the risk by a wide margin imo.

Irsay cannot have been particularly pleased with the Colts winning last night...

PoopSandwich
12-23-2011, 10:23 AM
I would assume it's more likely that all 3 teams in the top 3 will take the chance to hold up either Cleveland Miami or Washington for Luck if given the opportunity.

A team like Cleveland is most likely to be picking fourth and has two first rounders this year, wouldn't be shocked to see MINN/STL trade back to the fourth spot for an extra first and maybe a second rounder, sit comfortably at fourth, and take the BPA at that point (that isn't Richardson considering both of their teams RB).

San Diego Chicken
12-23-2011, 10:36 AM
I think the only thing keeping STL from jumping all over Luck is Bradford's obscene contract. Most overpaid player in the NFL bar none.

BeerBaron
12-23-2011, 10:37 AM
I think the only thing keeping STL from jumping all over Luck is Bradford's obscene contract. Most overpaid player in the NFL bar none.

They've already paid him the biggest part of the bonus and the near certainty of having a new front office and coaching staff means they might be more willing to bite the bullet and take Luck for his greater potential.

San Diego Chicken
12-23-2011, 10:44 AM
They've already paid him the biggest part of the bonus and the near certainty of having a new front office and coaching staff means they might be more willing to bite the bullet and take Luck for his greater potential.

If the cap hit is palatable I take Luck and don't turn back.

BeerBaron
12-23-2011, 10:46 AM
If the cap hit is palatable I take Luck and don't turn back.

If it's not, they could also still take Luck and keep Bradford around for a little while until the cap hit does get more reasonable. All thanks to the rookie salary structure.

And if Bradford turns it around in the meantime, his value will only go UP from there, until you have a Brees/Rivers kind of situation.

JBCX
12-23-2011, 10:57 AM
The real question is:

If they drop to the #2 pick, do they package something in a deal with St. Louis to move up to #1? I don't see how you can sleep at night if you're the Indy GM and you just barely miss out on Luck and he turns into the next Dan Marino.

vidae
12-23-2011, 10:58 AM
I just don't see the Rams taking Luck. Imagine what they could get for that pick. They need help at so many positions and this could set up the Rams for the future in one draft.

WCH
12-23-2011, 11:07 AM
If the Vikings pass on Luck because they reached for Ponder last year, then they're even dumber than anybody realizes.

Bradford probably also hasn't done enough to prove to a new regime that he's going to be an elite QB. Through two NFL seasons he's been inefficient and he's missed significant playing time in two of the past three seasons. It's not that he hasn't looked pretty good at times, but a new group certainly wouldn't be married to him.

I say: old regime rolls with Bradford; new regime moves forward with Luck.

PoopSandwich
12-23-2011, 11:10 AM
I would be down if the Rams wanted to trade Bradford for our Falcons first round pick... That would bring him here with Shumur for a reasonable pick and money wouldn't be that much of an issue with the Browns. This would also allow us to take someone like Blackmon in the top 5.

This draft is gonna be pretty ridiculous.

Brent
12-23-2011, 11:20 AM
I just don't see the Rams taking Luck. Imagine what they could get for that pick. They need help at so many positions and this could set up the Rams for the future in one draft.
DING DING DING! we have a winner.

WCH
12-23-2011, 11:29 AM
I'm just throwing this out there, but not only do I think that the Vikings should draft Luck if they get the top pick, but if I were them I'd be open to including Adrian Peterson in a trade-package to move up to #1.

AD is going to be 27 in March, so he's got about three quality years left (RBs can typically play at a high level until 29-30). It's really optimistic to think that the Vikings can turn things around and make a run within that three-year window. But if Luck doesn't bust, they might have a 10-15 year window.

If Peyton Manning is healthy and they can make the contracts work, then that might be an appealing option to the Colts (assuming they don't win enough to not get the top pick).

PoopSandwich
12-23-2011, 11:34 AM
I'm just throwing this out there, but not only do I think that the Vikings should draft Luck if they get the top pick, but if I were them I'd be open to including Adrian Peterson in a trade-package to move up to #1.

AD is going to be 27 in March, so he's got about three quality years left (RBs can typically play at a high level until 29-30). It's really optimistic to think that the Vikings can turn things around and make a run within that three-year window. But if Luck doesn't bust, they might have a 10-15 year window.

You're suggesting trading the best running back in the league to move up 2 spots at most when you drafted a QB in the first round the previous year?

WCH
12-23-2011, 11:40 AM
You're suggesting trading the best running back in the league to move up 2 spots at most when you drafted a QB in the first round the previous year?

I don't like Ponder and I think that Vikings are probably going to suck for a long time, because they're led by incompetent fools. Their saving grace in recent years had been AD falling into their laps and Brett Favre having a sworn grudge against the Vikings primary rival. They aren't even close to being a well-run franchise.

I think that getting Luck is pretty much their best shot at not-sucking, short of moving to LA and completely cleaning house.

Also, having the best RB in a pass-oriented NFL is starting to look like it means all of jack ****.

J-Mike88
12-23-2011, 01:03 PM
I think the only thing keeping STL from jumping all over Luck is Bradford's obscene contract. Most overpaid player in the NFL bar none.

(Unless Jamarcus is still collecting $ from the Raiders)

J-Mike88
12-23-2011, 01:05 PM
I'm just throwing this out there, but not only do I think that the Vikings should draft Luck if they get the top pick, but if I were them I'd be open to including Adrian Peterson in a trade-package to move up to #1.

AD is going to be 27 in March, so he's got about three quality years left (RBs can typically play at a high level until 29-30).
Boy, as a die-hard Viking-hater, I'd love to see them trade Peterson.
Even if he only has 3 dominant years, left.... 3 years is a long time really.
Think back 3 years: The Giants were the champions 3 years ago.... a lot happens in 3 years.

I'd love them to punt him away.... send him to Cleveland....

thefridge15
12-23-2011, 01:43 PM
I don't like Ponder and I think that Vikings are probably going to suck for a long time, because they're led by incompetent fools. Their saving grace in recent years had been AD falling into their laps and Brett Favre having a sworn grudge against the Vikings primary rival. They aren't even close to being a well-run franchise.

I think that getting Luck is pretty much their best shot at not-sucking, short of moving to LA and completely cleaning house.

Also, having the best RB in a pass-oriented NFL is starting to look like it means all of jack ****.

You clearly have an agenda against the Vikings so I won't address this much, but you clearly contradict yourself.

You said the following:
"Their saving grace in recent years had been AD falling into their laps" and "having the best RB in a pass-oriented NFL is starting to look like it means all of jack ****"

Which one is it?

WCH
12-23-2011, 01:48 PM
You clearly have an agenda against the Vikings so I won't address this much, but you clearly contradict yourself.

You said the following:
"Their saving grace in recent years had been AD falling into their laps" and "having the best RB in a pass-oriented NFL is starting to look like it means all of jack ****"

Which one is it?

The bigger part of my hypothesis involved "Good-Brett" showing up. Their "Bad-Brett" and "Bad-Everybody-Else" years haven't struck fear into anybody's hearts.

They won't win anything without a guy who can chuck the football at a high level, and they've got a bad track record when it comes to scouting QBs. They need to grab the low-hanging fruit when it's available.

yo123
12-23-2011, 01:57 PM
Jesus christ people we aren't trading Peterson. It's getting harder and harder to tolerate the stupid things that get posted in this forum.

And I think the Vikings beat either the Skins this week or the Bears in week 17 so I still don't think we have much of a shot at the #1 pick as awesome as it would be. Even if we lose out if the Colts' front office isn't telling the coaching staff to do everything in their power to put them in position to lose next week they're morons. They can only hope that the Jags tank even harder to avoid playing Luck twice a year. That game might be the ugliest game of the year but it's also one of the most interesting.

WCH
12-23-2011, 02:01 PM
Jesus christ people we aren't trading Peterson. It's getting harder and harder to tolerate the stupid things that get posted in this forum.

And I think the Vikings beat either the Skins this week or the Bears in week 17 so I still don't think we have much of a shot at the #1 pick as awesome as it would be. Even if we lose out if the Colts' front office isn't telling the coaching staff to do everything in their power to put them in position to lose next week they're morons. They can only hope that the Jags tank even harder to avoid playing Luck twice a year. That game might be the ugliest game of the year but it's also one of the most interesting.

I didn't say the Vikes would. I threw it out there as a possible scenario. Sort of like nobody seriously believes that the Colts are trading a healthy Peyton Manning (or that anybody would trade for an injured Peyton Manning), but everybody still talks about it. It's an issue of which hypothetical scenario would maximize marginal utility to the team.

And the Colts aren't tanking. That should be pretty obvious after the past week.

I'll be sure to avoid sacred cows in the future.

yo123
12-23-2011, 02:16 PM
I didn't say the Vikes would. I threw it out there as a possible scenario. Sort of like nobody seriously believes that the Colts are trading a healthy Peyton Manning (or that anybody would trade for an injured Peyton Manning), but everybody still talks about it. It's an issue of which hypothetical scenario would maximize marginal utility to the team.

And the Colts aren't tanking. That should be pretty obvious after the past week.

I'll be sure to avoid sacred cows in the future.

The players aren't tanking, that's obvious. The majority of the players on the team won't be there in 3-4 years when Luck hits his prime anyway, they don't care if they get him or not.

But the coaching staff can absolutely do things to put them in a position to fail, and if you don't think that's at least crossed the front office's mind you're crazy.

Crazy_Chris
12-23-2011, 02:55 PM
I like Ponder and think he is going to become a good QB... But if the end up at #1 and don't get an amazing offer for the pick than they should take luck.

robert pancake gallery
12-23-2011, 05:49 PM
i wouldn't be surprised to see the Colts troll the NFL and trade the first pick for Eli, and start both Manning brothers in the dual QB formation

CJSchneider
12-23-2011, 06:06 PM
i wouldn't be surprised to see the Colts troll the NFL and trade the first pick for Eli, and start both Manning brothers in the dual QB formation

http://www.8bitbrigade.com/images/smilies/954-not-sure-if-serious.jpg

WCH
12-23-2011, 08:18 PM
The players aren't tanking, that's obvious. The majority of the players on the team won't be there in 3-4 years when Luck hits his prime anyway, they don't care if they get him or not.

But the coaching staff can absolutely do things to put them in a position to fail, and if you don't think that's at least crossed the front office's mind you're crazy.

Teams that are tanking wouldn't switch away from losing QBs. The news that there would be a coaching change at 0-16 also isn't something that you would expect to see from a front office that was tanking the season.