Sign in to follow this  
Havenless

Keeping the Old Proven Guy Over The Young Buck

Recommended Posts

No, this isn’t another Foles-Wentz thread. This is a Brady Garappolo thread. 2 SB appearances later, does anyone still think Pats picked the wrong guy?

I still believe the Colts did in 2012. Peyton made 2 SBs and won 1 in the 4 years he was in Denver, plus made the divisional round all 4 years. Had the Colts stayed with Peyton, traded the Luck pick for 4 other first round picks, they’d be sitting here today with a much better 2010’s decade, and a QB from one of the next three post-2015 drafts named Goff/Wentz/Trubisky/Mahomes/Watson/Mayfield/Darnold.

Instead, who here genuinely believes Indianapolis will be in a Super Bowl any time in Luck’s career? Steelers will bounce back, Jax will fix their qb problem, Mahomes is just coming on, and Brady is coming back. SD is better. Houston won the division and should be back next year. Depending on what Denver does at QB they might be in it.

Conversely, Peyton would have had 4 additional top 10 1st rounders with him in Indy. Denver’s or Jax’s or whatever bottom feeding team gave them out. Add Zeke to Peyton’s team. Add Jalen Ramsey and Joey Bosa and Jamal Adams.

Does anyone see Garappolo beating KC in KC last weekend? Jax, down 20-10 with 5 min left?

Remember when the Titans dumped MVP McNair for Vince Young and McNair went 13-3 with the Ravens? Keep McNair, spend the first rounder on a DT. Remember when the Rams dumped Kurt Warner for Marc Bulger? Bulger made the playoffs a few times, and then the Rams experienced the worst losing streak in team history, while watching Kurt make the SB from their division! 

GB is lucky Aaron won the SB in 2010, because they haven’t been back since. Remember when Packers went 11-5 in 2009, Aaron’s second year? They were 11-3 against everyone not named Favre. What if the kept Brett and traded Aaron for players/picks? Think about that,  NFCCG would be in GB. Saints would have to travel to GB. No dome team has ever won an NFCCG as a visitor to a cold weather open air stadium. That goes DOUBLE for Lambeau field. Obvious Aaron is amazing and he won a SB, so it’s not a good point. But if he didn’t, there’d be some consideration to this. The 2010 run wasn’t a run of dominance, he was a WC team. We got close to beating him, Steelers got close to beating him, a few lucky bounces went their way. This isn’t just "let’s trade an all time great before he’s valued as an all time great!”

 

What did they give up when they gave up Favre? They made NFCCG in 2007 with Favre then the team was bad in 2008 with an inexperienced QB. 2008 NFCCG was 2 wildcard teams. 2009 we’ve discussed. There may have been opportunities there they threw away, all I’m saying. When Favre retires in 2010, they’re in line for Cam, for Luck, or maybe they settle with a Wilson, a Foles, a Cousins. Is there legacy so much better today that it would be in this scenario? They have a guy who sells tickets and 1 SB ring. They made the right choice? Okay, I don’t agree it was a no-brainer.

This is different than our situation, or Montana/Young or Kurt/Trent or Bledsoe/Brady or Bledsoe/Romo because the young backup PROVED he could continue the winning before they parted with the incumbent. Don’t trade away your superstar for an unproven backup. Rarely works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've read all that and what's your point? NE did the right thing in keeping Brady. GB should have traded Rodgers and so what we should trade Wentz? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You start off talking about the Manning/Luck transition. I have no idea if a Super Bowl is in Luck’s future, but I think mentioning Peyton’s Super Bowl win in Denver is not a great point. By the time Denver won SB 50, Peyton was a shell of himself who was carried by a great Denver defense that year. Indy didn’t have a defense near as good and I don’t see Indy as likely to have won a Super Bowl in the years Manning was in Denver had he stayed in Indy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

So I've read all that and what's your point? NE did the right thing in keeping Brady. GB should have traded Rodgers and so what we should trade Wentz? 

Has nothing to do with Wentz, which is why I put it in ATL.

29 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

You start off talking about the Manning/Luck transition. I have no idea if a Super Bowl is in Luck’s future, but I think mentioning Peyton’s Super Bowl win in Denver is not a great point. By the time Denver won SB 50, Peyton was a shell of himself who was carried by a great Denver defense that year. Indy didn’t have a defense near as good and I don’t see Indy as likely to have won a Super Bowl in the years Manning was in Denver had he stayed in Indy. 

Not necessarily guaranteeing a SB in Indianapolis, but they dont have to win one to exceed the Luck reign thusfar. And it would have been Indy + many top draft picks, a far better team than Luck was given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Havenless said:

Has nothing to do with Wentz, which is why I put it in ATL.

Not necessarily guaranteeing a SB in Indianapolis, but they dont have to win one to exceed the Luck reign thusfar. And it would have been Indy + many top draft picks, a far better team than Luck was given.

That also assumes they hit on those picks. Regardless, I think you’re going to have a hard time finding many organizations that are willing to pass on what they believe is a generational QB. Now of course, it doesn’t mean they’ll be right, but it’s not likely many will pass up the hardest position to get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Havenless said:

Has nothing to do with Wentz, which is why I put it in ATL

But surely that's kind of the hidden point here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

But surely that's kind of the hidden point here? 

Nah, I was watching a video about the Patriots maybe should have traded Brady back in 2017 and thought about the precedent.

The analogy doesnt really fit Wentz vs Foles at all. Everyone can admit we've seen Wentz destroy people at his peak. We only saw Foles do that in the NFCCG, but that maybe had more to do with Minnesota than Philly. A close analogy is Bledsoe vs Brady, because at the time they picked Brady, he wasn't very prolific. But Drew had been a league leader many times to that point. But that doesnt work either because Brady was so much younger, and its flipped here. Not intended to be a related post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EagleJoe8 said:

That also assumes they hit on those picks. Regardless, I think you’re going to have a hard time finding many organizations that are willing to pass on what they believe is a generational QB. Now of course, it doesn’t mean they’ll be right, but it’s not likely many will pass up the hardest position to get. 

But they passed on a HoF QB who still wants to play in order to get the generational QB, exactly like the scenario in NE.

Look at our 1st round draft picks in the 4 years after they cut Peyton:

Cox

Lane

Marcus Smith

Nelson Agholor

 

1 a bust, 1 a good situational player, 2 complete superstars. Add them to the Colts and they get MONSTROUSLY better. Remove them from us and there's no way we win the 2017 superbowl or even make the playoffs in 2018. They don't need to hit on all of them, 1 or 2 will make a big difference. Remember, before 2011, they had double digit wins 9 consecutive years. Then in 2011 they went 2-14 when we realized HE was doing it. He alone makes them an AFCCG contender every year, he and help can make them more than that. They've never been one since with Luck, even the year they actually did make it (2014) was a bit of a fluke with the Reid collapse game, and the Patriots proceeded to blow them into orbit. Not an analyst alive (exaggeration) thought they could make it right back in 2015, which is extraordinarily telling.

 

Main point is still with no Superbowls, the 4 years he stays will have been so much better, and it's not as if its Curtis Painter every year after, they then go out and get a new franchise guy like Mahomes, like Watson, like Goff, or whoever was available in that butterfly effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Havenless said:

But they passed on a HoF QB who still wants to play in order to get the generational QB, exactly like the scenario in NE.

Look at our 1st round draft picks in the 4 years after they cut Peyton:

Cox

Lane

Marcus Smith

Nelson Agholor

 

1 a bust, 1 a good situational player, 2 complete superstars. Add them to the Colts and they get MONSTROUSLY better. Remove them from us and there's no way we win the 2017 superbowl or even make the playoffs in 2018. They don't need to hit on all of them, 1 or 2 will make a big difference. Remember, before 2011, they had double digit wins 9 consecutive years. Then in 2011 they went 2-14 when we realized HE was doing it. He alone makes them an AFCCG contender every year, he and help can make them more than that. They've never been one since with Luck, even the year they actually did make it (2014) was a bit of a fluke with the Reid collapse game, and the Patriots proceeded to blow them into orbit. Not an analyst alive (exaggeration) thought they could make it right back in 2015, which is extraordinarily telling.

 

Main point is still with no Superbowls, the 4 years he stays will have been so much better, and it's not as if its Curtis Painter every year after, they then go out and get a new franchise guy like Mahomes, like Watson, like Goff, or whoever was available in that butterfly effect.

At that time though Manning had major neck surgery that they did not know if he would ever recover from and if he did they didn't know if he would be the same. They cut everyone from that team except Reggie Wayne. Lane , Cox and Agholor who didn't play well till his 3rd season when Manning was declining would not of changed that team that much. Luck turned them into an 11-5 team his rookie year. Manning went to a loaded broncos team and still couldn't get it done until they put together a generational defense his last year there. Luck is still putting together great seasons and playoff runs and is only 28. Manning has been done for 4 years now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bwestbrook36 said:

At that time though Manning had major neck surgery that they did not know if he would ever recover from and if he did they didn't know if he would be the same. They cut everyone from that team except Reggie Wayne. Lane , Cox and Agholor who didn't play well till his 3rd season when Manning was declining would not of changed that team that much. Luck turned them into an 11-5 team his rookie year. Manning went to a loaded broncos team and still couldn't get it done until they put together a generational defense his last year there. Luck is still putting together great seasons and playoff runs and is only 28. Manning has been done for 4 years now. 

He had a line of teams offering 20 million year. Everyone was pretty sure he'd be fine. And if rookie Luck got them 11-5, how could alltimer manning not do better? Lane and Cox wouldn't help? They'd have been huge! And I dont mean them specifically, just showing 4 first round picks can drastically change a team even if some are duds.

 

Plus, they don't not have a qb for 10 years after manning. Theyd get someone after him. Who was after him? Goff, Wentz, Mahomes, Watson, Trubisky, Mayfield, Darnold. Pick one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Havenless said:

He had a line of teams offering 20 million year. Everyone was pretty sure he'd be fine. And if rookie Luck got them 11-5, how could alltimer manning not do better? Lane and Cox wouldn't help? They'd have been huge! And I dont mean them specifically, just showing 4 first round picks can drastically change a team even if some are duds.

 

Plus, they don't not have a qb for 10 years after manning. Theyd get someone after him. Who was after him? Goff, Wentz, Mahomes, Watson, Trubisky, Mayfield, Darnold. Pick one.

I guess they could have but, there is no telling that they get any of these guys. If luck makes the team he is traded to 11-5 they are not getting lane at 4 the next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bwestbrook36 said:

I guess they could have but, there is no telling that they get any of these guys. If luck makes the team he is traded to 11-5 they are not getting lane at 4 the next year. 

Again, its not those players specifically, its the point that 4 first rounders in general can dramatically improve a team, even if 1 or 2 are busts.

And the team he's traded to would lose many first rounder picks, so they're not likely to improve year-to-year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Havenless said:

Again, its not those players specifically, its the point that 4 first rounders in general can dramatically improve a team, even if 1 or 2 are busts.

And the team he's traded to would lose many first rounder picks, so they're not likely to improve year-to-year.

Well Luck didn't have much of anything and turned them into winners so he could do that with the team he is traded too. None of the picks the colts took with luch amounted to much and he still won. Other then Hilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bwestbrook36 said:

Well Luck didn't have much of anything and turned them into winners so he could do that with the team he is traded too. None of the picks the colts took with luch amounted to much and he still won. Other then Hilton

But Payton was taking that team further than Luck did, and they’d have their picks AND someone else’s picks. Luck wouldn’t have turned around Washington, Cleveland, NYJ. Indy had a depleted roster, yes, but those places are talent black holes. Andrew was winning the division every year because it’s Jax and Titans and Texans, 3 teams so bad they had to draft qbs during his run. Luck did well, Peyton would have done better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Havenless said:

But Payton was taking that team further than Luck did, and they’d have their picks AND someone else’s picks. Luck wouldn’t have turned around Washington, Cleveland, NYJ. Indy had a depleted roster, yes, but those places are talent black holes. Andrew was winning the division every year because it’s Jax and Titans and Texans, 3 teams so bad they had to draft qbs during his run. Luck did well, Peyton would have done better.

Possibly, who knows. It didn't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

So I've read all that and what's your point? NE did the right thing in keeping Brady. GB should have traded Rodgers and so what we should trade Wentz? 

I will take this opportunity to once again say...

Eagles should trade Wentz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dannyb said:

I will take this opportunity to once again say...

Eagles should trade Wentz

I will take this opportunity to once again say...

You're delusional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Corleone said:

I will take this opportunity to once again say...

You're delusional

I will take this opportunity to say...

I agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

I will take this opportunity to say...

I agree. 

I will take this opportunity to say... 

I third that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MH1989
14 hours ago, Havenless said:

No, this isn’t another Foles-Wentz thread. This is a Brady Garappolo thread. 2 SB appearances later, does anyone still think Pats picked the wrong guy?

I still believe the Colts did in 2012. Peyton made 2 SBs and won 1 in the 4 years he was in Denver, plus made the divisional round all 4 years. Had the Colts stayed with Peyton, traded the Luck pick for 4 other first round picks, they’d be sitting here today with a much better 2010’s decade, and a QB from one of the next three post-2015 drafts named Goff/Wentz/Trubisky/Mahomes/Watson/Mayfield/Darnold.

Instead, who here genuinely believes Indianapolis will be in a Super Bowl any time in Luck’s career? Steelers will bounce back, Jax will fix their qb problem, Mahomes is just coming on, and Brady is coming back. SD is better. Houston won the division and should be back next year. Depending on what Denver does at QB they might be in it.

Conversely, Peyton would have had 4 additional top 10 1st rounders with him in Indy. Denver’s or Jax’s or whatever bottom feeding team gave them out. Add Zeke to Peyton’s team. Add Jalen Ramsey and Joey Bosa and Jamal Adams.

Does anyone see Garappolo beating KC in KC last weekend? Jax, down 20-10 with 5 min left?

Remember when the Titans dumped MVP McNair for Vince Young and McNair went 13-3 with the Ravens? Keep McNair, spend the first rounder on a DT. Remember when the Rams dumped Kurt Warner for Marc Bulger? Bulger made the playoffs a few times, and then the Rams experienced the worst losing streak in team history, while watching Kurt make the SB from their division! 

GB is lucky Aaron won the SB in 2010, because they haven’t been back since. Remember when Packers went 11-5 in 2009, Aaron’s second year? They were 11-3 against everyone not named Favre. What if the kept Brett and traded Aaron for players/picks? Think about that,  NFCCG would be in GB. Saints would have to travel to GB. No dome team has ever won an NFCCG as a visitor to a cold weather open air stadium. That goes DOUBLE for Lambeau field. Obvious Aaron is amazing and he won a SB, so it’s not a good point. But if he didn’t, there’d be some consideration to this. The 2010 run wasn’t a run of dominance, he was a WC team. We got close to beating him, Steelers got close to beating him, a few lucky bounces went their way. This isn’t just "let’s trade an all time great before he’s valued as an all time great!”

 

What did they give up when they gave up Favre? They made NFCCG in 2007 with Favre then the team was bad in 2008 with an inexperienced QB. 2008 NFCCG was 2 wildcard teams. 2009 we’ve discussed. There may have been opportunities there they threw away, all I’m saying. When Favre retires in 2010, they’re in line for Cam, for Luck, or maybe they settle with a Wilson, a Foles, a Cousins. Is there legacy so much better today that it would be in this scenario? They have a guy who sells tickets and 1 SB ring. They made the right choice? Okay, I don’t agree it was a no-brainer.

This is different than our situation, or Montana/Young or Kurt/Trent or Bledsoe/Brady or Bledsoe/Romo because the young backup PROVED he could continue the winning before they parted with the incumbent. Don’t trade away your superstar for an unproven backup. Rarely works out.

New England got to a point where they needed to make a decision between their two quarterbacks - pay Jimmy G and trade Tom Brady, or keep Tom Brady and trade Jimmy G. There was no way they could keep both. Jimmy G had too much market value to take a pay cut and wait around until Brady decided to stop playing. If Brady did play until he is 45, that would make Jimmy G 31 by the time Brady retired. They had to make a call and they chose Brady because they believed he could continue to play at a high level. Now had he regressed like Peyton did in his final season with the Broncos and Jimmy G played to a high level for the 49ers and taken them to the play offs this season, then people would start to question why the Patriots traded Jimmy and didn't hold onto him and make him their quarterback for the 2018 season. As it happens, Brady hasn't regressed like Peyton, and Jimmy G didn't lead the 49ers to the play offs and instead tore his ACL. So it all worked out well for the Patriots, but it could have worked out differently and still could if they don't replace Brady (many teams have had long QB droughts, Buffalo, Miami, Cleveland etc) and the 49ers and Jimmy G go on to have success. 

When it comes to the Colts and Manning. They had to make a tough decision. Believe their franchise quarterback could comeback from his serious neck injury and play to a high level for years to come, but in doing so pass on a generational quarterback talent; or move on from their legendary quarterback and draft the generational quarterback talent. They decided to pick the young guy and they did have some early success with him. The way they have rebuilt under their new GM and head coach is promising and maybe they can go on to win a Super Bowl in the future. Time will tell. But without using hindsight, the Colts made the right call because no one knew that Peyton would comeback and play like he did, and even if he had, that Colts team was not set up as well to win now as the Broncos team was. So while he could have taken the Colts to the play offs and competed, it is by no means a guarantee he would have done as well as he did in Denver, especially considering how bad the Colts OL was during Luck's early years. It is quite possible some of those hits would have ended Peyton's comeback had he suffered them behind the Colt's OL. 

9 hours ago, Havenless said:

He had a line of teams offering 20 million year. Everyone was pretty sure he'd be fine. And if rookie Luck got them 11-5, how could alltimer manning not do better? Lane and Cox wouldn't help? They'd have been huge! And I dont mean them specifically, just showing 4 first round picks can drastically change a team even if some are duds.

 

Plus, they don't not have a qb for 10 years after manning. Theyd get someone after him. Who was after him? Goff, Wentz, Mahomes, Watson, Trubisky, Mayfield, Darnold. Pick one.

Teams are always likely to go after quarterbacks with his resume even if they possess an injury risk. It's like when Drew Brees hit free agency, New Orleans were more than happy to pay him, and Miami decided to pass on him and not take the risk which I'm sure they regret to this day. It's a known fact that quarterback needy teams will take risks to land that coveted quarterback that can help them get to the next level. They will pay them to come play, or they will give up the farm in order to draft them. So it was not surprising to see teams line up to sign Peyton Manning, even the Miami Dolphins went after him and had he favoured them I doubt they would have got cold feet like they did when it came to Drew Brees.

Also, it is worth pointing out that Peyton's contract with Denver was actually constructed in a manner that made it fairly low risk. Yes on face value it was 5-years and $96 million, but it featured a series of potential get out clauses if Peyton did not recover from his serious neck injury. The first year included $18 million guaranteed. After year one, he was required to pass a physical, if he did then he would be guaranteed $40 million over the next two seasons. However, if he injured his neck they could void the contract. So the deal made sense and was low risk. If he recovered, they would have a franchise quarterback for the next handful of years. If he didn't recover, or the injury reoccured, then they could get out of the deal. 

Now you do have a point that a healthy Peyton Manning could have taken that team further than Andrew Luck. They could have sold the first overall pick for a King's ransom and landed some quality additions to help them win. But there is no guarantee that Peyton would have taken them further or won another Super Bowl with them. They made a decision to draft a so-called generational quarterback prospect because that could give them their next quarterback for the next 10-15 years, whereas they didn't believe Peyton would return to his old ways, and even if he did it was debatable how much longer he would play. Sometimes teams need to make difficult decisions, and without the benefit of hindsight the Colts made the right call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in hindsight, the Colts made the right call to move on from Peyton. When he left the team, they werne't in a position to compete. Instead they now have their QB for the next 10~ seasons and can worry about building around him. 

In the case of the Packers, they also made the right move from Favre. I don't think they win a Superbowl with Favre at helm that season, and likewise, now they had their QB to be their guy for the next 10~ seasons.

In the case of the Patriots, it may still be too early to say but I think they also made the right choice. Brady up to that point had won them multiple superbowls compared to Peyton and Favre for their respective franchises. Luck was a generational pick, Rodgers was a great pick, Garapollo was a later draft pick who showed some flashes here and there and... that was it. And then further to that, Brady wasn't coming off of any sort of serious injury like Manning was. Favre was a gunslinger who was still playing ok, but his mentally just doesn't work in todays NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jury is still out on Garoppolo.... He tore his ACL Week 3 just as he was getting warmed up. I suppose the Pats made the right choice. They could afford to part with Garoppolo because Tom Brady is still playing. The Pats are in the Super Bowl while Garoppolo is on IR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 1:23 PM, Havenless said:

 

 

GB is lucky Aaron won the SB in 2010, because they haven’t been back since. Remember when Packers went 11-5 in 2009, Aaron’s second year? They were 11-3 against everyone not named Favre. What if the kept Brett and traded Aaron for players/picks? Think about that,  NFCCG would be in GB. Saints would have to travel to GB. No dome team has ever won an NFCCG as a visitor to a cold weather open air stadium. That goes DOUBLE for Lambeau field. Obvious Aaron is amazing and he won a SB, so it’s not a good point. But if he didn’t, there’d be some consideration to this. The 2010 run wasn’t a run of dominance, he was a WC team. We got close to beating him, Steelers got close to beating him, a few lucky bounces went their way. This isn’t just "let’s trade an all time great before he’s valued as an all time great!”

 

Rodgers is a first ballot HOF QB. He has gone to 3 NFC title games, 1 Super Bowl. How many SB did Favre win in Minnesota or NY? He actually cost them a trip to the SB with his int.  You do understand it takes teams to win. Rodgers has had very little run game and some average at best defenses. Rodgers also rode the bench for what 3 years behind Favre? Not like they instantly replaced Favre. Also how many SB did Favre win in GB...1...the same as Rodgers 

Marino went to a SB in his first season and never went back after that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 8:54 PM, Havenless said:

But Payton was taking that team further than Luck did, and they’d have their picks AND someone else’s picks. Luck wouldn’t have turned around Washington, Cleveland, NYJ. Indy had a depleted roster, yes, but those places are talent black holes. Andrew was winning the division every year because it’s Jax and Titans and Texans, 3 teams so bad they had to draft qbs during his run. Luck did well, Peyton would have done better.

 Luck in his third year led the entire NFL in touchdowns and took Indy to the AFC title game. He did this with zero run game and an average at best defense. A defense that allowed over 40 points in three playoff games with Luck. You need to move on at some point. Manning wasn't going to play forever and they needed to draft his replacement. Manning played for the Colts for 13 seasons, won 1 Super Bowl,  9-10 in the playoffs. For as good as Manning was, he played his worst in the postseason. The Colts with Luck in his first three seasons went 3-3 in the playoffs. It took the Colts with Manning until his sixth season to have 3 playoff wins Luck actually is better at this point in his career than Manning was 

Luck's first three years in Indy (33-15, 86td/43int)

2012: 11-5,  lost Wild Card round (lost to Bal 24-9)
2013: 11-5,  lost Divsional Round (lost to NE 43-22)
2014: 11-5,  lost AFC Championship game (lost to NE 45-7)


Manning's final three years in Indy (24-8, 66td/28int)

2011: 2-14, missed entire season
2010: 10-6,  lost Wild Card round (lost to NYJ 17-16)
2009: 14-2,  lost Super Bowl (lost to NO 31-17)

Oh and the thing about him playing very bad teams...wouldn't Manning have played those same teams had he stayed? It's also not like Manning faced a tough division in his final years in Indy. Or even when he went to Denver. A few seasons in Denver w/ Manning  the division was terrible. 

Luck missed the entire 2017 season so below is compairing each QB in their first 6 seasons in which they played. Luck is just as good if not better than Manning was at this point and he has played in 10 less games 

Luck 
86 games
53-33, 3-3 in playoffs
132td/68int

Manning  
96 games
54-42, 2-4 in playoffs
138td/100int
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jason1978 said:

Rodgers is a first ballot HOF QB. He has gone to 3 NFC title games, 1 Super Bowl. How many SB did Favre win in Minnesota or NY? He actually cost them a trip to the SB with his int.  You do understand it takes teams to win. Rodgers has had very little run game and some average at best defenses. Rodgers also rode the bench for what 3 years behind Favre? Not like they instantly replaced Favre. Also how many SB did Favre win in GB...1...the same as Rodgers 

Marino went to a SB in his first season and never went back after that. 

 

 

...Which is the whole point of this thread. They would have had a better team around Favre because they'd have gotten more back for Rodgers.

 

And Marino never made the Super Bowl in his first season. 1983 season Super Bowl was Redskins - Raiders.

9 hours ago, Jason1978 said:

 Luck in his third year led the entire NFL in touchdowns and took Indy to the AFC title game. He did this with zero run game and an average at best defense. A defense that allowed over 40 points in three playoff games with Luck. You need to move on at some point. Manning wasn't going to play forever and they needed to draft his replacement. Manning played for the Colts for 13 seasons, won 1 Super Bowl,  9-10 in the playoffs. For as good as Manning was, he played his worst in the postseason. The Colts with Luck in his first three seasons went 3-3 in the playoffs. It took the Colts with Manning until his sixth season to have 3 playoff wins Luck actually is better at this point in his career than Manning was 

Luck's first three years in Indy (33-15, 86td/43int)

2012: 11-5,  lost Wild Card round (lost to Bal 24-9)
2013: 11-5,  lost Divsional Round (lost to NE 43-22)
2014: 11-5,  lost AFC Championship game (lost to NE 45-7)


Manning's final three years in Indy (24-8, 66td/28int)

2011: 2-14, missed entire season
2010: 10-6,  lost Wild Card round (lost to NYJ 17-16)
2009: 14-2,  lost Super Bowl (lost to NO 31-17)

Oh and the thing about him playing very bad teams...wouldn't Manning have played those same teams had he stayed? It's also not like Manning faced a tough division in his final years in Indy. Or even when he went to Denver. A few seasons in Denver w/ Manning  the division was terrible. 

Luck missed the entire 2017 season so below is compairing each QB in their first 6 seasons in which they played. Luck is just as good if not better than Manning was at this point and he has played in 10 less games 

Luck 
86 games
53-33, 3-3 in playoffs
132td/68int

Manning  
96 games
54-42, 2-4 in playoffs
138td/100int
 

But we're not comparing Luck and Manning's first 3 years, we're comparing their 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015. But its Manning PLUS the first overall pick, or just Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this