Should the Colts trade the No. 1 pick?

I don't think Reid is getting canned, but if he is, I'm guessing he'd be on the short list.

Most of the big names (Fisher, Cowher) out there have defensive backgrounds, but could also bring in a top OC. I'm assuming Gruden stays put at ESPN.

 

I don't think Manning will wind up with the Jets.

I think it will be Arizona, San Fran, Seattle, maybe KC.

 

I just do not understand this thinking at all.

If Manning's not healthy . . . Luck takes the reins.

If Manning's healthy . . . Luck carries a clipboard for a couple of years, makes No. 1 pick money, doesn't get banged around like most rookie QBs do, learns from the greatest QB mind of this generation . . . and perhaps becomes Indy's Aaron Rodgers in 2-3 years.

 

I'm working under the assumption that Manning won't be there. If Manning is healthy, A BIG IF, he'll probably play more than 2-3 years.

 

Would they? I think with or without Manning, this team would not have won the South. The Texans are just too good. Really, I think Indy should draft Luck, but they have several other needs. I think this is a six-win team with Manning. The defense isn't good enough.

 

Oh don't get me dreaming, that's cruel. Someone above said the 49ers already have weapons in place, um not really. Gore, yes. Maybe Manning makes Crabtree/Davis into true gamebreakers. Alex Smith certainly cannot.

 

This part of your argument isn't accurate. Washington State actually has a pretty strong tradition of producing high-level QBs - Drew Bledsoe, Mark Rypien, "The Throwin' Samoan" Jack Thompson and Timm Rosenbach all played at Wazoo and went onto the NFL before Leaf was there.

Washington State and Stanford both have the same amount of current NFL players on rosters (13). It's not like Stanford's some sort of football factory. (And anyone who wants to compare Matt Barkley and Andrew Luck needs to look at the collection of receivers each had to work with and decide how much easier that makes life for a QB. Barkley's very good, but Luck is a special player.)

 

True dat on Luck/Barkley. If Luck has Barkley's receivers, he wins the Heisman in a rout.

 

Or Stanford QBs not named Elway.

If the Colts can get two seconds or a first and a second just to trade down and get Barkley, that to me is a no brainer. The team would be getting three starting players in the NFL instead of one, and is the gap between these players that great?

Maybe the Steelers spoil me, but I would grab the picks.

Now only getting one high draft pick for the switch? Not worth it. But I am guessing there are teams out there (hello Washington!) who just might trade the farm for Luck.

 

Are any of those teams going to be in position to guarantee they can deliver Barkley from their spot in the draft? The Rams, Vikings and Panthers are likely to be teams 2 through 4, and all of them have their QB of the future and might also be open to a trade-up, so anyone who is offering Barkley to the Colts is going out on a thin twig.

 

Wasn't that what people were supposed to look at when Rodgers came out of Cal?

 

I was thinking about this today: What would the 49ers have to give up to get the No. 1 pick and take Luck? Obviously he's close to Jim Harbaugh, and as someone said, there are weapons in place. Should Luck pan out the way these pundits think he will, I can see a decade of dominance.

Still, I've never been a big fan of mortgaging the future for a "can't-miss" guy.