Romo had an excellent year. It was not his fault they are not 11-5.

Jason Garrett's blunders, over and over are the reason.

I would take Tony Romo is a heartbeat. He is easily a top 7 QB in this league.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Great thoughts here on Manning & Luck. With the new CBA, Cam Newton signed a 4-year deal. So, if Manning is kept by the Colts, then the clock is ticking on the time they have with Luck, should they draft him.

Peyton's 2010 numbers were very good and only slightly below his career average QB rating. Unless they're convinced that he's truly damaged goods and will never be himself again, they risk much by letting him go. However, if they keep him and draft Luck, then the 4-year clock is ticking...and who knows if Luck would be willing to sit behind him a la Rodgers (and I agree...it's not the same situation). Would they be willing to keep Manning and maybe get 2 more years with him, then only 2 years with Luck?

Honestly, having said all that, I would keep Manning and draft Luck. If Luck is all that after 4 years, then you sign him again or franchise him...cross that bridge when you get to it. I kind of hope they don't think like me and do something that makes this offseason even wackier than it is shaping up to be.

tsstamper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Honestly, having said all that, I would keep
> Manning and draft Luck. If Luck is all that after
> 4 years, then you sign him again or franchise
> him...cross that bridge when you get to it.


First off, how will you know how good Luck will be if Manning stays healthy and he never gets on the field? You do have to account for that possibility as a GM...

Secondly how happy with your organization do you think Luck will be if you burn the first 4 years of his potential HOF career carrying a clipboard for Manning?

Lastly, if Luck never gets on the field, how can you justify paying him $25 mill or so with the franchise tag when he's been on the bench for 4 years?

with polian gone, I think it's totally up in the air what they do with payton/luck. The direction to take had to have had something to do with polian getting canned. Not sure whether this makes it more or less likely that payton is gone next year, or whether Indy trades out of the #1 pick and gets the ransom in draft picks and players that comes with it. If I am indy I think hard about trading out of the pick

I agree that this firing has everything to do with a disagreement over what to do about Manning/Luck OR RG3. Maybe Irsay told Polian he wants RG3 and Polian balked? Really strange that the Polians have been fired and not Caldwell.

Whoa. Luck is not ready to start in the NFL next year. A Marino comes along once in a lifetime.

Like Ryan Mallett is to Tom Brady.

Luck is the future of Indy. NOt the present.

He has to FIRST learn how to be an NFL quarterback.

Granted he has the mental capacity that is far above any previous rookie but give it time.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoa. Luck is not ready to start in the NFL next
> year. A Marino comes along once in a lifetime.
>
> Like Ryan Mallett is to Tom Brady.
>



Barring an injury to Brady or a change in heart on how long he plans to play, Ryan Mallett is NOT the future of the Pats.

Brady is 34. He's said he plans to play past the age of 40 (I think the records mean a lot to him).

Mallett has 3 years left on his rookie deal. Brady will be 37 when Mallet becomes a free agent. Mallet isn't likely to sign on to carry a clipboard for Tom for another 3-5 years. He'll be looking for a bigger payday and a chance to start.

Look for the Pats to trade Mallett in two years after showcasing him for a few pre-seasons and turn that extra 3rd from 2011 into a #1 or multiple picks in 2015.

The Colts just made a move to get rid of Payton, or at least not renew his deal.

I go with Moore. If you can get Flynn too, I can live with that.

What we really need is an OC that tries to score instead of this 85% run on first and second down one we currently have.

I dont see any QB being successful with that kind of crap. Moore did quite well with it though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 07:02AM by dolphin.

Larry, Moe and Squirrelly...Our next QB, our next HC, the Chinese year we win our next SB.

When will we learn about this Hollywood league? No Franchise QB, no relevance.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Barring an injury to Brady or a change in heart
> on
> > how long he plans to play, Ryan Mallett is NOT
> the
> > future of the Pats.
> >
> > Brady is 34. He's said he plans to play past
> the
> > age of 40 (I think the records mean a lot to
> him).
> >
> >
> > Mallett has 3 years left on his rookie deal.
> > Brady will be 37 when Mallet becomes a free
> agent.
> > Mallet isn't likely to sign on to carry a
> > clipboard for Tom for another 3-5 years.
> He'll
> > be looking for a bigger payday and a chance to
> > start.
> >
> > Look for the Pats to trade Mallett in two years
> > after showcasing him for a few pre-seasons and
> > turn that extra 3rd from 2011 into a #1 or
> > multiple picks in 2015.
>
> RESPONSE: Not true. As a player, your skill sets
> start diminishing from age 34 on which renders
> your own intent to play to age 40 irrelevant,
> regardless of your desire.


True enough...but when you are a hall of famer your skill set has to diminish a hell of a lot before you fall off the map.

Plus he's a 3x Super Bowl winner. I bet Kraft is more than willing to let him go out on his terms provided they arent below .500.

He won't be the same player at 40 that he is now for sure...but if Favre can win 9-10 games at 41 so can Brady (barring a big injury like Marino had).


>
> More over, it's not just sudden and singular
> "career-ending" injuries that you have to worry
> about, it's those day-by-day poundings that you
> take that taper off your effectiveness and thus
> career.

He gets hit less than Gisselle does.

If he doesn't suffer an arm injury, neck or back injury or he doesn't blow out an achillies...he'll be a top 10 QB at the age of 39 or 40. But that doesn't matter. he only has to be a top ten QB at 37 if he is...Mallett is GONE.

>
> Secondly, the Pats took Mallett in the second
> round.


No. They took him in the 3rd round....74th overall. 10th Pick of the round, right after the took Steven riddley at #73.

It was in all the papers.



>
> They (the Pats) are one of the wisest teams in
> football and they spent a second rounder on him
> because they see him (barring some other prospect
> falling into their lap which is unlikely given the
> fact that the draft operates on the best teams
> picking lower and the Pats are periennially at the
> top) as their QB of the future.
>
> Either that or they picked him to keep out of
> Dolphin hands which I don't think is too likely
> because he was bound to be picked by one of the
> other 30 teams in that same draft had the Pats not
> got him.


They drafted Mallett because he was good value at #74 and because they had already addressed other needs with their multiple 2nd & 3rd round selections.

If it panned out...he could be traded and that extra 3rd could be a 1st or better.

If it didn't....all they did was flush an EXTRA 3rd round pick.

That's why they are smart. They accumulate extra picks like this so they can afford to roll the dice on a guy like mallett and hope to parlay the pick into even better picks down the road.

one other thing to consider is this: teams with top 5 QBs have trouble landing good backup QBs. most good backup Qbs want to go somewhere where they might have a chance of playing or possibly competing for the job. they don't want to go somewhere they will have literally no chance of playing barring a serious injury. this is why teams with top 5 QBs will occasionally draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th round if they are good value or the team really likes the player. They will then have the opportunity to groom that QB behind a top QB. Two positives of the situation for the team are: 1) if they hit on the QB they have one of the best backup QBs in the league and 2) they will have opportunities to showcase this QB in pre-season and if they are able to generate enough interest they can flip this QB ala Kevin Kolb and Matt Cassel.

i agree with Truth that the primary reason the Pats took Mallet is because of good value and the potential to buy low and sell high. i also agree with chyren that they knew Mallet could be used as a contingency if Brady got hurt badly or declined suddenly in the next three years(assuming Mallet developed adequately), however unlikely that may be.