Oh no, don't get me wrong. Manning has made the Colts and will forever be the greatest quarterback of all time to me. However, if we trade him, he is gone, he'll no longer be able to help the colts. If he plays, they may not get Luck, a phenom that rarely comes around. If he can no longer play effectively and is not traded, well then it's the best of both worlds. He still has so much to give the organization. I realize it's a ver selfish way of thinking. I mean this only in a business sense. I would never want anyone to have a career ending injury (even as much as we all hate Brady).
Man I was hoping you went there. Rodgers sat behind Favre for THREE YEARS! Hell the Packers were trying to peddle him to Oakland for Randy Moss before the Pats got him first. Steve Young sat behind Montana for FOUR YEARS! His original team traded him to move on with Vinny Testeverde since his first two seasons he went 3-16 as a starter throwing 11 TDs to 21 INTs. They deemed him a bust and moved on. He later became an all time great. People have these ideas in their heads that teams with already great QBs draft young QBs and just hand over the reigns rookie season and say go get em. This only happens at places like Carolina where the next best QB option is the Hot Dog salesmen, not a team with Manning in the lineup. It...Just...Doesn't.....Happen.
Thank you. I wish the colts head office felt the same. You hear a lot these days about "the system". Teams want to assume that they can take anyone off the street and put them in the lineup and they will be successful because they have a good "system". Well the colts have that mentallity, how's that working for them.
Your missing a few key points here, First off, how good of a teacher was Brett Favre? Come on now... Secondly, Luck is supposed to be the most pro-ready QB ever, that adds to the mix... Third and foremost, 130 million dollars. This part is key..what do you do about Mannings INSANE contract?
1.) Who knows/cares. I think its the time playing/practicing against and with an all time great for years before being given the responsibility of winning games. I doubt Manning will nurture Luck like a baby fawn either, but having years to prep without the starter target of scrutiny on your back greatly benefits players, as exhibited by most all great QBs. 2.) According to who? ESPN? I realize he is a great QB, but that doesn't translate into instant NFL success all the time. Even Manning had a rocky start in the NFL, and for every Manning there is a Tim Couch example to match it. Throwing away a sure fire all star for a "promising" rookie is a garbage game plan, and it's why no one has ever done it before. 3.) Manning is WORTH his insane contract, especially as your starter. What do you do with a #1 draft pick rookie salary is the better question, and that one is much easier to swallow. It's an expensive maneuver, but one that benefits your team the most in the long run IMO. Their defense/coach is what i don't think will allow them to win regardless which formula they draw up. It doesn't matter to me either way, I hate the Colts and Manning.... but it's a silly proposal to think a franchise will offload an all time great who hasn't even hit his down hill slope in performance yet for a promising rookie. It hasn't happened before, and it won't happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
