So, should we have Sucked for Luck?

[tay0365]

amazing. who needs wikipetia. good job bro.

LOL

 

[tay0365]

I went to '98 just because of Manning Mania. Funny thing is, they're more likely to win another Super Bowl before we are able to win one. I'd be happy to take bets on that. Sig bets anybody? A Luck-led Colts team winning a SB before the Phins.

Prepare to be very surprised, check out how great they are next year compared to Miami...people really don't know how much Manning pick up the skill level of that team.

You asked for teams that were competitive the next year or within 5 years. Every single one I mentioned fit that criteria. Every single one didn't just make the playoffs, but was competitive in them. That's something our team hasn't been in well over a decade.

Fine, those team showed some competitiveness for a season here or there, but my point is, getting that 1 player #1 overall did not make them a top team, all those teams you mentioned were inconsistant year to year.

As for the Falcons, I was referring to Vick. They were competitive immediately with him, then plummeted to being the second worst team in 2007 after losing him (and all the turmoil surrounding it and the coaching fiasco), behind only us (and I would argue they may have actually been worse than us). What position did they draft in 2008? Oh, right, a QB. Who has been to the playoffs repeatedly since then? The Phins? No, that's right, the Falcons. Now you can argue that they keep getting knocked out, but it's hard to take that seriously from someone that would argue that OT was the better decision, which has contributed to 3 consecutive losing seasons. Yeah, the Falcons and Ryan suck because they can't make it far in the playoffs...

My argument is not taking a OT over a QB, it was taking an OT that was considered a can't miss over a QB that had 1 great year, and 3 mediocre other years in college. If it had been Long vs Rogers or even now Luck, there is no doubt you go QB, but not for that extremely overrated QB in Atlanta.

 

[JCane]

Never. Beating the Redskins, Chiefs, Raiders, Jets, Bills, etc, will be memories I will cherish for the rest of my life.

I guarantee you had to look up who we beat last season to make this post.

LOL @ "Rest of your life."

Quick, name the teams we beat in 2004 without looking it up since you will cherish these wins for the rest of your life.

What's even more funny is this **** in your sig...

If you love:
1. Shoddy media stories/false reporting
2. Decades of underachieving
3. Changing Quarterbacks at least twice a year
4. Trading your best weapons for peanuts
5. Being tortured

Being a Miami Fan is for you

Obviously, we don't need to take a different approach to achieve the ultimate goal.

 

[JCane]

Big Time...... NOPE!!!!!!

Other then the 2008 Dolphins, please let me know which team after getting the overall #1 pick, was competive the following year, or even following 5 years?

Besides, we would not have gotten him anyway, no team was more committed to losing all their games then the Colts, and getting RG3 after losing all those games, would not have felt all that great.

Ask the Giants if they gave up too much for Eli Manning. How about the Colts getting Peyton Manning instead of Ryan Leaf. How are those Detroit Lions doing these days. Bengals improved a great deal after Carson Palmer. Michael Vick was unreal in Atlanta.

You want to win 7 games next season or average 8 or 9 wins over 5 seasons with one playoff appearance where we back in the way the Jets have the past few seasons? Why are you putting a time limit on when a QB can be GREAT. Alex Smith, 8 seasons later, looked pretty good this past season. You want the aforementioned over 10 years or do you want some crappy seasons mixed in with a couple of average ones and then a Super Bowl? Because you aren't getting that Super Bowl without an elite level QB anymore. League has changed to benefit the QB position too much. You need to see that. Or do you want your "diamond in the rough, next you-think-is Marino" in the 5th round to shock the world? Highly unlikely. Andrew Luck is capable of flipping a franchise.

Watch it happen.

 

[HarryBagpipe]

If you don't think having the number one pick this year would if been the best thing that could of happened to this franchise, then you really dont understand this game that well. And I'll just leave it with that

 

[GoonBoss]

I'm not going to pay money to see a team that intentionally loses.

I don't have any respect for any player or coach that throws games either.

As a player, not only would I blow the whistle, I wouldn't show up.

 

[Valandui]

I'm not going to pay money to see a team that intentionally loses.

I don't have any respect for any player or coach that throws games either.

As a player, not only would I blow the whistle, I wouldn't show up.

I take it you aren't a Colts fan, then.

 

[Gonzo]

Prepare to be very surprised, check out how great they are next year compared to Miami...people really don't know how much Manning pick up the skill level of that team.



Fine, those team showed some competitiveness for a season here or there, but my point is, getting that 1 player #1 overall did not make them a top team, all those teams you mentioned were inconsistant year to year.



My argument is not taking a OT over a QB, it was taking an OT that was considered a can't miss over a QB that had 1 great year, and 3 mediocre other years in college. If it had been Long vs Rogers or even now Luck, there is no doubt you go QB, but not for that extremely overrated QB in Atlanta.

You keep bringing up next year. The Colts aren't drafting Luck to win anything next year. Stop and think for a moment. They're going to draft Luck then build around him. That's how good teams do it. That's how they did it before, when they built a team around Peyton Manning and competed damn near every year, including winning a Super Bowl. What did the Phins accomplish over the same time period? And I fully understand how much Manning lifted the talent-level of that team, because I understand that QB is by far the most important position in football. Far more important than LT.

While I enjoy the backtracking regarding competitiveness, I will agree on one thing: getting the number one pick does not guarantee success. You still need to use that pick wisely. For example, you never take an LT when a QB is available and you are in desperate need of one. You also never take a RB when one is available at the #2, but I digress... Taking a QB is always a risk, but it's always a risk worth taking. Sticking with the safe picks, which linemen usually are, guarantees continued mediocrity, at best (6-10 isn't even that).

It's still too early to judge the Lions, but they've gone from 2-14 to the playoffs and I don't see any reason, outside of potential Stafford health issues (many of which have to do with his competitiveness and willingness to play hurt when he probably shouldn't), that that team won't be a perennial playoff contender. They got their QB, surrounded him with weapons, and then built a solid defense. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.

The Houston Texans after 2006 were inconsistent? They've owned the Phins, that's for sure, but that's neither here nor there. They gave Carr one more shot and drafted Mario Willams, then moved on in 2007 to Matt Schaub. Once they had the QB settled, they began to build the team, especially the defense (noticing a theme here?) over the next couple of years. Now that they have a solid D under Wade Phillips, you still see them as being inconsistent? You don't see them winning that division again next year?

I don't really need to say anything about the Chargers since drafting Rivers. If you don't realize that the only thing that has held that potential powerhouse back is Norv Turner, well, now's not the time for football lessons. How that guy keeps his job (and continues getting head coaching jobs) is beyond me. Despite him, they still made three straight playoff appearances including a conference championship. How many playoff appearances have the Phins made in the past decade?

The Bengals are the only ones on my list that I would qualify as inconsistent. They certainly used the 1st pick properly, and gave him weapons. They even had a solid D. I can't really explain why they haven't been successful. Difficult division? Building the team with a bunch of headcases? Using the 1st pick doesn't guarantee success. You still have to make wise decisions regarding the team. But it is a HUGE stepping stone to success. They got that part right, then bombed on the rest.

The Falcons are a good example of using the 1st pick correctly twice (I'll count their use of the #2 for Matt Ryan as a 1st pick, since he should have been), but getting different results out of it. They were successful under Vick, but they failed to build anything around him. They just didn't know what to do with a player like that (plus, he was a little overrated IMO). He held that team up as much as he could and got them to the playoffs twice, but in the end, they didn't bother to build around that 1st pick.

They didn't make that same mistake with Matt Ryan. That team was in shambles in 2007. I have no idea how they won 4 games. I honestly think we could have gotten our second win if we played them. They needed a QB as badly as we did, but unlike us, they actually drafted one. They then gave him some weapons and built a D. Since then, they haven't had a losing season and have made the playoffs 3 years out of 4. They've lost to Super Bowl appearing teams each time, two of which won it. That's hardly "inconsistent." You can call him mediocre all you want, but that "mediocre" QB has led his team to the playoffs 3 times with no losing seasons while our elite LT hasn't led us to ****.

In summary, having the 1st pick doesn't guarantee you anything, you still need to use it wisely and build a team around it. Some teams get it, others don't. Further, every draft is different. People don't seem to get this. They basically think all 1st picks are the same, that every top QB in a given draft is the same as every top QB in every other draft. That's ridiculous. There hasn't been a prospect like Luck in years. Hell, since 1998. And we missed out on it. But, at least we have Matt Moore and an awesome LT (when healthy).

 

[fishfanmiami]

You keep bringing up next year. The Colts aren't drafting Luck to win anything next year. Stop and think for a moment. They're going to draft Luck then build around him. That's how good teams do it. That's how they did it before, when they built a team around Peyton Manning and competed damn near every year, including winning a Super Bowl. What did the Phins accomplish over the same time period? And I fully understand how much Manning lifted the talent-level of that team, because I understand that QB is by far the most important position in football. Far more important than LT.

While I enjoy the backtracking regarding competitiveness, I will agree on one thing: getting the number one pick does not guarantee success. You still need to use that pick wisely. For example, you never take an LT when a QB is available and you are in desperate need of one. You also never take a RB when one is available at the #2, but I digress... Taking a QB is always a risk, but it's always a risk worth taking. Sticking with the safe picks, which linemen usually are, guarantees continued mediocrity, at best (6-10 isn't even that).

It's still too early to judge the Lions, but they've gone from 2-14 to the playoffs and I don't see any reason, outside of potential Stafford health issues (many of which have to do with his competitiveness and willingness to play hurt when he probably shouldn't), that that team won't be a perennial playoff contender. They got their QB, surrounded him with weapons, and then built a solid defense. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.

The Houston Texans after 2006 were inconsistent? They've owned the Phins, that's for sure, but that's neither here nor there. They gave Carr one more shot and drafted Mario Willams, then moved on in 2007 to Matt Schaub. Once they had the QB settled, they began to build the team, especially the defense (noticing a theme here?) over the next couple of years. Now that they have a solid D under Wade Phillips, you still see them as being inconsistent? You don't see them winning that division again next year?

I don't really need to say anything about the Chargers since drafting Rivers. If you don't realize that the only thing that has held that potential powerhouse back is Norv Turner, well, now's not the time for football lessons. How that guy keeps his job (and continues getting head coaching jobs) is beyond me. Despite him, they still made three straight playoff appearances including a conference championship. How many playoff appearances have the Phins made in the past decade?

The Bengals are the only ones on my list that I would qualify as inconsistent. They certainly used the 1st pick properly, and gave him weapons. They even had a solid D. I can't really explain why they haven't been successful. Difficult division? Building the team with a bunch of headcases? Using the 1st pick doesn't guarantee success. You still have to make wise decisions regarding the team. But it is a HUGE stepping stone to success. They got that part right, then bombed on the rest.

The Falcons are a good example of using the 1st pick correctly twice (I'll count their use of the #2 for Matt Ryan as a 1st pick, since he should have been), but getting different results out of it. They were successful under Vick, but they failed to build anything around him. They just didn't know what to do with a player like that (plus, he was a little overrated IMO). He held that team up as much as he could and got them to the playoffs twice, but in the end, they didn't bother to build around that 1st pick.

They didn't make that same mistake with Matt Ryan. That team was in shambles in 2007. I have no idea how they won 4 games. I honestly think we could have gotten our second win if we played them. They needed a QB as badly as we did, but unlike us, they actually drafted one. They then gave him some weapons and built a D. Since then, they haven't had a losing season and have made the playoffs 3 years out of 4. They've lost to Super Bowl appearing teams each time, two of which won it. That's hardly "inconsistent." You can call him mediocre all you want, but that "mediocre" QB has led his team to the playoffs 3 times with no losing seasons while our elite LT hasn't led us to ****.

In summary, having the 1st pick doesn't guarantee you anything, you still need to use it wisely and build a team around it. Some teams get it, others don't. Further, every draft is different. People don't seem to get this. They basically think all 1st picks are the same, that every top QB in a given draft is the same as every top QB in every other draft. That's ridiculous. There hasn't been a prospect like Luck in years. Hell, since 1998. And we missed out on it. But, at least we have Matt Moore and an awesome LT (when healthy).

Never was SFL but you make a strong case for getting a francise QB at all cost. Good post.

 

[electrolyte]

You keep bringing up next year. The Colts aren't drafting Luck to win anything next year. Stop and think for a moment. They're going to draft Luck then build around him. That's how good teams do it. That's how they did it before, when they built a team around Peyton Manning and competed damn near every year, including winning a Super Bowl. What did the Phins accomplish over the same time period? And I fully understand how much Manning lifted the talent-level of that team, because I understand that QB is by far the most important position in football. Far more important than LT.

While I enjoy the backtracking regarding competitiveness, I will agree on one thing: getting the number one pick does not guarantee success. You still need to use that pick wisely. For example, you never take an LT when a QB is available and you are in desperate need of one. You also never take a RB when one is available at the #2, but I digress... Taking a QB is always a risk, but it's always a risk worth taking. Sticking with the safe picks, which linemen usually are, guarantees continued mediocrity, at best (6-10 isn't even that).

It's still too early to judge the Lions, but they've gone from 2-14 to the playoffs and I don't see any reason, outside of potential Stafford health issues (many of which have to do with his competitiveness and willingness to play hurt when he probably shouldn't), that that team won't be a perennial playoff contender. They got their QB, surrounded him with weapons, and then built a solid defense. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.

The Houston Texans after 2006 were inconsistent? They've owned the Phins, that's for sure, but that's neither here nor there. They gave Carr one more shot and drafted Mario Willams, then moved on in 2007 to Matt Schaub. Once they had the QB settled, they began to build the team, especially the defense (noticing a theme here?) over the next couple of years. Now that they have a solid D under Wade Phillips, you still see them as being inconsistent? You don't see them winning that division again next year?

I don't really need to say anything about the Chargers since drafting Rivers. If you don't realize that the only thing that has held that potential powerhouse back is Norv Turner, well, now's not the time for football lessons. How that guy keeps his job (and continues getting head coaching jobs) is beyond me. Despite him, they still made three straight playoff appearances including a conference championship. How many playoff appearances have the Phins made in the past decade?

The Bengals are the only ones on my list that I would qualify as inconsistent. They certainly used the 1st pick properly, and gave him weapons. They even had a solid D. I can't really explain why they haven't been successful. Difficult division? Building the team with a bunch of headcases? Using the 1st pick doesn't guarantee success. You still have to make wise decisions regarding the team. But it is a HUGE stepping stone to success. They got that part right, then bombed on the rest.

The Falcons are a good example of using the 1st pick correctly twice (I'll count their use of the #2 for Matt Ryan as a 1st pick, since he should have been), but getting different results out of it. They were successful under Vick, but they failed to build anything around him. They just didn't know what to do with a player like that (plus, he was a little overrated IMO). He held that team up as much as he could and got them to the playoffs twice, but in the end, they didn't bother to build around that 1st pick.

They didn't make that same mistake with Matt Ryan. That team was in shambles in 2007. I have no idea how they won 4 games. I honestly think we could have gotten our second win if we played them. They needed a QB as badly as we did, but unlike us, they actually drafted one. They then gave him some weapons and built a D. Since then, they haven't had a losing season and have made the playoffs 3 years out of 4. They've lost to Super Bowl appearing teams each time, two of which won it. That's hardly "inconsistent." You can call him mediocre all you want, but that "mediocre" QB has led his team to the playoffs 3 times with no losing seasons while our elite LT hasn't led us to ****.

In summary, having the 1st pick doesn't guarantee you anything, you still need to use it wisely and build a team around it. Some teams get it, others don't. Further, every draft is different. People don't seem to get this. They basically think all 1st picks are the same, that every top QB in a given draft is the same as every top QB in every other draft. That's ridiculous. There hasn't been a prospect like Luck in years. Hell, since 1998. And we missed out on it. But, at least we have Matt Moore and an awesome LT (when healthy).

Not every day you get a post like this. Thanks

 

[fishfanmiami]

Great post by Gonzo. Now can we finally put this to rest. We did not SFL. Let's start looking for the next Luck. He's gone guys. The good news (really bad news) is neither Flynn nor Moore look like the next Marino. IF we suck next year we'll have this conversation once more but Luck is gone. Sorry ... move on. Find the next Luck (Barkley ?)

 

[jason_taylor]

No. What pisses me off is that this franchise really wasn't in that bad of a spot up until today. Our team was solid all around at all positions. All we needed was a new QB (which could of been had through Manning, Flynn or Tannehil) and a few loose ends. We got a new offensive minded coach to hopefully spark the team. Instead, we took a gigantic step backward. We are rebuilding a team that really didn't need it. We didn't NEED to suck for Luck because we really weren't in that bad off a position until today. But, we screwed it up, and sucking for Luck actually looks good now.

true but look how much better we would be if we did ? and another thing show mw a QB you would rather have right now besides luck that we can /could have gotten ?

 

[JCane]

You keep bringing up next year.

I'm convinced that these people believe strongly in the Mayan predictions.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

The Bengals are the only ones on my list that I would qualify as inconsistent. They certainly used the 1st pick properly, and gave him weapons. They even had a solid D. I can't really explain why they haven't been successful. Difficult division? Building the team with a bunch of headcases? Using the 1st pick doesn't guarantee success. You still have to make wise decisions regarding the team. But it is a HUGE stepping stone to success. They got that part right, then bombed on the rest.

Mike Brown is a horrible owner and refuses to hire a real GM to make personnel decisions, so it's no surprise that they can't put the pieces together. That said, I think their biggest problem was that Carson Palmer just flat out wasn't the same guy after he got injured by Cheapo von Cheapshotten.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Absolutely. Other than imploding the stadium it's the most overwhelmingly beneficial option we've faced in two decades.