Luck took his team to 11-5 his first 3 years as a pro. He is not overrated. Idk if I would want him though. Injuries are too concerning.
Yeah, I really don't see the overrated tag for him. He was getting progressively better in his first three years, culminating in a year where he threw 40 TD passes and got his team to the conference championship game. The problem is that he's missed 1 1/2 of the last three seasons, and still can't pick up a football, according to reports. I view this situation as the perfect catch-22: if he's healthy he's better than anyone available, but if he's available he's not healthy. The only way I see him working out for the Jets is if the Colts' medical staff is completely incompetent and he's much healthier than they think he is.
The Colts have the inside track on Luck ...and know his health better than anyone.. I am hoping they will trade the 3rd pick with us ..I see it as essential to get a good QB If NOT then the world knows Andrew's Luck has run out..and the Jets are forced to wait for a falling star at 6 I see the Jets future improving thru the draft... not re tread QBs
Yeah, that’s pretty much what Luck has been considered since he cane into the league, but I always though the better comparison was that he is just a better version of Cade Mcnown with better upside.
No thank you. I rather take my chances in the draft we have a excellent chance at getting our Quarterback of the future.
This board is amazing. Everyone complains we can't get a QB but the moment anyone brings up a specific QB the reaction is "No not that one." Edit: My point is that other teams invest premium assets to go after multiple QBs, all of which carry substantial risks, until they get a good one. The Eagles gave an injury-prone Bradford a big contract and then traded up for Wentz who came from an FCS school. Then they brought back Foles a year later. The Chiefs traded up for Mahomes even though they had Alex Smith. The Seahawks signed Matt Flynn to a big contract and drafted Wilson the same year. Elway signed Peyton even though Peyton was coming off neck surgery. Then he drafted Paxton Lynch and is showing interest in Cousins. Meanwhile we have a worse QB situation than any of those teams in large part because we haven't tried to invest anything serious in a QB since Sanchez failed. Yet so many posters are unwilling to take a chance on a QB because of a fear of failure.
Yes, anyone saying they wouldn’t want him because he’s the equivalent of Mark Sanchez probably doesn’t know the difference between quarterback and cornerback. But not wanting to trade him because of his injury concerns is legit.
If you want a good QB you have to take a risk. Say we give Indy the 6th pick for Luck and it doesn't work out. Guess what, Mayfield or Allen might not work out either. And Indy trading Luck doesn't mean Luck won't get healthy. The Chargers sent Brees to NO and Brees is still elite. Our fear of investing in a QB since Sanchez has hurt us way more than Sanchez ever did.
Trading for Andrew Luck right now would be like trading for Joe Namath after his 2nd knee operation. Great player no doubt but likely the best days are past already and it would be a huge gamble to spend anything significant to acquire him. If the Colts were in "dump Luck's contract" mode and willing to give him away for a quarter on the dollar by all means take that risk. I don't think they're going to be there at this point though. Also, Luck would really have to want to come here.
I wanted us to draft Carr in 2014 and Mahomes last year. I'd like for us to land one of Rosen/Darnold/Mayfield this year. I'm not a fan of Allen. Brees didn't miss nearly 2 full seasons before signing with NO.
Similarities do not make a logical argument, otherwise firemen would drive apples to calls because they are red like fire trucks. There is s huge difference between drafting a QB, who may fail because his talent is speculative, and trading for an injured QB who hasn’t physically been able to play for almost two seasons. Just because they both may fail doesn’t mean the failures are equal and thus you should approach injured players and rookies the same. That’s just a nonsensical argument.
Depends. The team is terrible so why be saddled with his contract while you rebuild if you can get a potential replacement for basically pennies on the dollar with a rookie. They really do have to ask themselves how much better Luck makes them in the next four to five years. If I’m the Colts and could get the Jets 6th pick, I’d absolutely trade him, draft a QB at three and hope the player I wanted at 3 originally was still there at 6, and save all that money.
If similarities don't make a logical argument then comparing my argument to a bad argument about firemen is itself illogical. So I suggest you revisit your premise that similarities don't make a logical argument.
Except that’s not how rules of logic work. Finding similarities and ignoring differences, as you did, results in untrue comparisons. To argue my example is dependent solely on similarities, but has a difference I am ignoring, you now have to state the difference, which you have not done. But that statement was not an argument in itself, it was an example that accurately shows how depending on similarities, while ignoring differences, results in untrue conclusions, which you did. You may want to revisit this yourself.
This is so stupid. You could make the same comparison with a reverse result by comparing the other injured FA QB that same year, Daunte Culpepper. The Vikings "sent him" to FA the same way the Chargers did Brees and the guy was done. The Phins actually chose one over the other and the Saints lucked out. Definitely no pun intended.
Injured QB, weak OL/running game, limited weapons. Pass. Edit: I know those areas can and will be improved, but enough?
