Should Oliver Luck pull a power play on the Colts?

[JoeRedskin]

I don't see it happening. Does Luck have some incredible desire to play somewhere? Is he adamantly opposed to playing for Indi?

I think the "Following a legend" works just as well as forcing the issue. In addition, to Rogers, there is the Steve Young example (slightly different b/c he had played in the USFL). Quite frankly, with rookies and back-ups, you just don't know until you know.

If I am Indi, no way I trade out Luck unless there is an obscene offer on the table. As in, multiple number 1's, multiple picks this draft, etc. Manning is almost done, they are the ulitmate QB driven team, built to score points and play with a lead. It's the culture of the team.

If I am Luck, and I am confident of my ability, I am happy to sit for a year or two behind P.Manning, watch, and learn. The big money and wins will come, I'd rather go to a team used to winning but having an off year rather than a losing team that is counting on me to save them.

I am sure this will be stirred up but I think the announcement "With the first pick of the 2012 draft, the Indianapolis Colts choose Luck of Stanford" is a given.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I don't see it happening. Does Luck have some incredible desire to play somewhere? Is he adamantly opposed to playing for Indi?

I think the "Following a legend" works just as well as forcing the issue. In addition, to Rogers, there is the Steve Young example (slightly different b/c he had played in the USFL). Quite frankly, with rookies and back-ups, you just don't know until you know.

If I am Indi, no way I trade out Luck unless there is an obscene offer on the table. As in, multiple number 1's, multiple picks this draft, etc. Manning is almost done, they are the ulitmate QB driven team, built to score points and play with a lead. It's the culture of the team.

If I am Luck, and I am confident of my ability, I am happy to sit for a year or two behind P.Manning, watch, and learn. The big money and wins will come, I'd rather go to a team used to winning but having an off year rather than a losing team that is counting on me to save them.

I am sure this will be stirred up but I think the announcement "With the first pick of the 2012 draft, the Indianapolis Colts choose Luck of Stanford" is a given.

Any competitor would hurl at what I bolded. There's no way that anyone with a modicum of competitive spirit or pride will be fine with 'sitting for a year of two'. That's not how pro athletes are wired. As a competitor, don't plug me in to what's already winning, I want to be the guy who leads us out of the doldrums and into glory.

End of the day, the Colts will still likely draft him but don't you think the Luck family can make it very interesting and uncomfortable?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Any competitor would hurl at what I bolded. There's no way that anyone with a modicum of competitive spirit or pride will be fine with 'sitting for a year of two'. That's not how pro athletes are wired. As a competitor, don't plug me in to what's already winning, I want to be the guy who leads us out of the doldrums and into glory.

End of the day, the Colts will still likely draft him but don't you think the Luck family can make it very interesting and uncomfortable?

Are you a sports psychologist? A GM? Personally know a broad spectrum of professional players? If you do, okay. I'll accept your judgment. If not, based on my own second hand experiences and following sports and atheletes for 40 some odd years, I would suggest that many extremely competitive guys like to be plugged into a winning situation and are willing to wait their turn as long as the guy in front of them is succeeding. This is not to say these guys are not wanting the start but are willing "take one for the team". Rivers did it with Brees for 2 years, didn't like it, but wasn't divisive about it either - I think we can agree that Rivers is just a touch competitive.

Obviously, he would want to play. Obviously, he would want to win. I don't mean to say he would be blase about it or not give a damn, but sitting year or two behind Peyton Manning is different than sitting a year or two behind R. Grossman. If you truly want to be the best, don't you think - just maybe - he would want to see how the best plays? Maybe it's the maturity thing again and I'm looking at with the eyes of the "been there, done that" 40-something as opposed to my 24 year old self.

Don't plug you into a winner?? Oh please. You think these guys come out wanting to play for losing teams?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Are you a sports psychologist? A GM? Personally know a broad spectrum of professional players? If you do, okay. I'll accept your judgment. If not, based on my own second hand experiences and following sports and atheletes for 40 some odd years, I would suggest that many extremely competitive guys like to be plugged into a winning situation and are willing to wait their turn as long as the guy in front of them is succeeding. This is not to say these guys are not wanting the start but are willing "take one for the team". Rivers did it with Brees for 2 years, didn't like it, but wasn't divisive about it either - I think we can agree that Rivers is just a touch competitive.

Obviously, he would want to play. Obviously, he would want to win. I don't mean to say he would be blase about it or not give a damn, but sitting year or two behind Peyton Manning is different than sitting a year or two behind R. Grossman. If you truly want to be the best, don't you think - just maybe - he would want to see how the best plays? Maybe it's the maturity thing again and I'm looking at with the eyes of the "been there, done that" 40-something as opposed to my 24 year old self.

Don't plug you into a winner?? Oh please. You think these guys come out wanting to play for losing teams?

I do have experience with athletes and a degree in sports management plus 40 years of fandom as well, thanks for asking, but that's not the full basis of my point.

My point is that athletes want to play, succeed and win. They don't want to be 'along for the ride' on a winning team, they want to contribute. That's what separates the pros from the joes and the good from the great, the desire to be the best. I'm not saying that guys come out WANTING to play for losing teams per se but they would rather play immediately for a loser and try to turn them around than sit for a winner and not contribute anything.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I do have experience with athletes and a degree in sports management plus 40 years of fandom as well, thanks for asking, but that's not the full basis of my point.

My point is that athletes want to play, succeed and win. They don't want to be 'along for the ride' on a winning team, they want to contribute. That's what separates the pros from the joes and the good from the great, the desire to be the best. I'm not saying that guys come out WANTING to play for losing teams per se but they would rather play immediately for a loser and try to turn them around than sit for a winner and not contribute anything.

First, I was really asking about your experience to see if you had a different, and better, perspective than me and, if so, I would be more willing to accept your conclusions. If it came across differently, it was not meant to be so.

Secondly, and more to the point, I don't really disagree with your assertion that these guys come out wanting to play and are hard wired that way. At the same time, it has been my observation that some are mature enough to put their long term interests over their short term interests without losing that competitive burn. Sure he may be chomping at the bit to play, but maybe, just maybe, Luck sees the long term benefit of playing behind Manning for a year or two as opposed to coming into a poor situation where he is condemned to losing, possibly for the long term.

Really, I agree with your premise - these guys come out wanting, burning even, to play. AND, if we were talking about playing behind Grossman for a year or two, I would not expect Luck to be peachy with that. I am suggesting, however, that a Manning/Luck QB situation would be something special in and of itself and comparable to Montana/Young. Maybe Luck recognizes that and says - "Okay, I can deal with being behind Manning. I don't particularly like it, but I can deal with it." As I said, Rivers came in behind Brees and was a team player while still, clearly, burning to play.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, I was really asking about your experience to see if you had a different, and better, perspective than me and, if so, I would be more willing to accept your conclusions. If it came across differently, it was not meant to be so.

Secondly, and more to the point, I don't really disagree with your assertion that these guys come out wanting to play and are hard wired that way. At the same time, it has been my observation that some are mature enough to put their long term interests over their short term interests without losing that competitive burn. Sure he may be chomping at the bit to play, but maybe, just maybe, Luck sees the long term benefit of playing behind Manning for a year or two as opposed to coming into a poor situation where he is condemned to losing, possibly for the long term.

Really, I agree with your premise - these guys come out wanting, burning even, to play. AND, if we were talking about playing behind Grossman for a year or two, I would not expect Luck to be peachy with that. I am suggesting, however, that a Manning/Luck QB situation would be something special in and of itself and comparable to Montana/Young. Maybe Luck recognizes that and says - "Okay, I can deal with being behind Manning. I don't particularly like it, but I can deal with it." As I said, Rivers came in behind Brees and was a team player while still, clearly, burning to play.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to be a dick but was just answering the questions since you asked.

I don't think Luck would be a malcontent or a problem if he were to it behind Manning but the situation would be extremely awkward. Manning is much like Favre apparently, wanting to dominate all practice reps, not serve as a true 'mentor' to his backups, really 100% focused on the team and his performance. As a #1 overall pick, I'd think that's a bad situation to be walking into, especially when I'm 'game ready' to most scouts and coaches.

Since you referenced Montana/Young, both of them acknowledge how difficult that was for both of them to deal with and how unhappy they both were. Back to the premise of the original post, if you are Oliver Luck, is that what you want for your kid or do you want him to go somewhere to create his own legacy?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Yeah, I wasn't trying to be a dick but was just answering the questions since you asked.

I don't think Luck would be a malcontent or a problem if he were to it behind Manning but the situation would be extremely awkward. Manning is much like Favre apparently, wanting to dominate all practice reps, not serve as a true 'mentor' to his backups, really 100% focused on the team and his performance. As a #1 overall pick, I'd think that's a bad situation to be walking into, especially when I'm 'game ready' to most scouts and coaches.

Since you referenced Montana/Young, both of them acknowledge how difficult that was for both of them to deal with and how unhappy they both were. Back to the premise of the original post, if you are Oliver Luck, is that what you want for your kid or do you want him to go somewhere to create his own legacy?

He will create his own legacy wherever he goes - Is Rogers success tied to Farve's? Was Young's tied to Monatana? Is Manning's somehow tied to Unitas' just b/c they played for the Colts? No. Each is seen as a success in their own right.

If your asking me what I would want and do if Luck were my son, I would want him in a place that would let him succeed for the long term and I think Indi is such a place. I would counsel him to go to Indi, tough it out for a couple years, learn what he could and be ready to start at any moment. As saden1 said, Manning is one tackle away from retirement.

I would also suggest he buy me a new car, a new house, and all the cool new tech gadgets my heart desires.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I don't see it happening. Does Luck have some incredible desire to play somewhere? Is he adamantly opposed to playing for Indi?

I think the "Following a legend" works just as well as forcing the issue. In addition, to Rogers, there is the Steve Young example (slightly different b/c he had played in the USFL). Quite frankly, with rookies and back-ups, you just don't know until you know.

If I am Indi, no way I trade out Luck unless there is an obscene offer on the table. As in, multiple number 1's, multiple picks this draft, etc. Manning is almost done, they are the ulitmate QB driven team, built to score points and play with a lead. It's the culture of the team.

If I am Luck, and I am confident of my ability, I am happy to sit for a year or two behind P.Manning, watch, and learn. The big money and wins will come, I'd rather go to a team used to winning but having an off year rather than a losing team that is counting on me to save them.

I am sure this will be stirred up but I think the announcement "With the first pick of the 2012 draft, the Indianapolis Colts choose Luck of Stanford" is a given.

That's just not going to happen. The guy is going to want to start and play day one. Look at all the rookies that are playing now? Newton, Ponder, Gabbert and Dalton. If Rodgers was drafted by anyone else he would've been on the field much earlier.