Peyton out of Indy! Or: Colts ready to press their Luck

[Duke]

Looks like it's official (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/03/06/indianapolis.colts.peyton.manning.ap/index.html?eref=BrkNews), or at least as official as Sports Illustrated's "unnamed sources" get.

Who's taking the bigger gamble: any one of the alleged suitors for the elder Manning, or the Colts' apparent declaration that an as-yet-undrafted Andrew Luck is the future of their franchise?

[aceplace57]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/indianapolis-colts-to-release-peyton-manning-030612

I hope he retires. I always hate seeing an athlete play too long. One Brett Favre is enough.

I wonder if any teams would risk much on Peyton? I can't imagine anyone signing him for any big money. One hard hit and your 10 million dollar quarterback may be done. His arm strength is still very questionable too. He's got a lot to prove before any coach will rely on him.

[HubZilla]

Looks like it's official (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/03/06/indianapolis.colts.peyton.manning.ap/index.html?eref=BrkNews), or at least as official as Sports Illustrated's "unnamed sources" get.

Rob Lowe? Looks like he was right all along?

[Sateryn76]

Reposted from the Draft thread

Indy is so stupid. This is such a bad move - they'll get Luck, still have an old team that has been trained to work with Manning for 14 years, and sink into mediocrity.

Manning will shine wherever he ends up, and Irsay will be roundly criticized and rightly fired.

Way to go, Colts. I've been a fan for years, but no more....

I mean, does the organization really think that they can get some QB phenom fresh out of college, drop him into a team that has been totally geared toward Manning for over a decade, and it's just gonna work? The defense has been coasting on Manning's huge points, the O line is old and set in their ways, and there is certainly no guarantee that Luck or anyone else has the stones to compete on a professional level.

Unless there's something bad we don't know about Manning's arm at this point, I think this is really stupid. They should have traded their 1st round pick for multiple picks to fill holes in the defense and offense, stuck with Manning for a few more years, and bring in a mid-ranked QB with a solid work ethic to train under Manning.

No one out there will work as hard as Manning - even if he's a little under par, you know he will work until he's back in top form. And, I bet that he would have been willing to reduce or even forgo his bonus to stay.

I really don't get this - Indy is nothing without Peyton. If he's ridden off into the sunset in a few years, Indy would have been fine reputation-wise, but now.....

[garygnu]

I disagree. Manning has a very good chance of being completely done forever, either already or after a few more bounty shots. Luck is as can't-miss as you can get. Manning also has a 100% chance of being too damn expensive., even if fully healthy. The team simply has to move on, like the 49ers did with Montana.

This is a QB driven league, and you can't pass up Luck (or RGIII) to fill your other holes. You fill the one hole that's bigger than the rest combined, and use your other high picks each round to try to patch the rest.

[ElvisL1ves]

I really don't get this - Indy is nothing without Peyton. They're not much with him anymore either.

Opening up money, and draft picks, for a full roster rebuild is perfectly sensible businesswise.

PR-wise? There's no graceful way to do this in a salary-cap world.

Or did you mean Indy the city is nothing without Peyton? ;)

[Oakminster]

Hmmm....the Saints are in a franchise tag dispute with Brees, and are getting tons of negative publicity every day because of the bounty scandal. Peyton Manning, son of Archie Manning, who I believe ranks third in all time popularity in New Orleans behind Jesus Christ and the Junkyard Dog, becomes available. I wonder.......

[Sateryn76]

They're not much with him anymore either.

Opening up money, and draft picks, for a full roster rebuild is perfectly sensible businesswise.

PR-wise? There's no graceful way to do this in a salary-cap world.

Or did you mean Indy the city is nothing without Peyton? ;)

I would be very interested to hear the private talks between Manning and Co about his bonus. By all accounts, Manning is not your typical money-grubbing NFL jerk. I don't think money was more than a side-issue with this.

And, yes, Manning put Indy as a city on the map, and they will fade substantially without him. He's wrapped up his life in that city, and this is a big slap in the face to those contributions. Too bad, too - Indy is a great city.

[garygnu]

As a 49ers fan, I can only hope they're a dark horse to get him.

[Spud]

Irsay will be roundly criticized and rightly fired.

You do realize that Jim is the OWNER and likely won't fire himself.

[RealityChuck]

This reminds me of the fans who hated that the Packers cut Bret Favre for Aaron Rodgers. It was the right move in the long run for the Packers, and the right move in the long run for the Colts. There's no reason to think Manning would be worth what they'll have to pay him; better to spend the money elsewhere.

Even if the team kept Manning, they were not likely to do all that well. Maybe Luck fails, but he is a better bet for 2014 than Manning.

[Sateryn76]

You do realize that Jim is the OWNER and likely won't fire himself.

Excellent point - I got a little excited there :D

I bet we can find a way to get rid of him....:cool:

[Sateryn76]

This reminds me of the fans who hated that the Packers cut Bret Favre for Aaron Rodgers. It was the right move in the long run for the Packers, and the right move in the long run for the Colts. There's no reason to think Manning would be worth what they'll have to pay him; better to spend the money elsewhere.

Even if the team kept Manning, they were not likely to do all that well. Maybe Luck fails, but he is a better bet for 2014 than Manning.

Leaving Luck aside, why the assumption that Manning wouldn't do well?

[wolfman]

I do have to wonder if Manning really wanted to go back.Obviously 28 mil is a nice incentive, but I doubt he really needs the money. He had to watch all of last year thinking "damn, these guys really suck, I have been carrying the fucking team for years all by myself" Getting a chance to go to a team with some other real players, while saving his goodwill legacy by looking like the dumpee rather than the dumper, may be a golden ticket for him.

[Marley23]

Rob Lowe? Looks like he was right all along?
Rob Lowe said he was going to retire, and if he was going to retire, why has he been working out with Colts WRs to demonstrate his arm strength? I would say Miami is the prohibitive favorite to sign him.

This reminds me of the fans who hated that the Packers cut Bret Favre for Aaron Rodgers.
Small difference: the Packers had Rodgers for three years before they got rid of Favre. He got very little game action, but they had three years to prepare him. The Colts are getting rid of Manning for a draft pick. That's certainly riskier. But it does look like the Colts have made the decision that what they have is not salvageable and that it's time to start over.

[R. P. McMurphy]

If you are the owner and have to put $28 million on a bet you certainly do a lot to check your odds. This is particularly true after a miserable season that tells you nothing other than that you need to rebuild your team. Say they pay the $28M to Peyton and he gets hurt early. Another lost season. If they spend the money on rebuilding and have some Luck (pun intended) at least they save the season and move ahead a year early. Indy has to be looking at the Lions. Bradford has revitalized a miserable franchise. The Pack and the Favre/Rogers situation also has to be an inspiration.

In pro football, players are meat on a hook. There is no incentive for owners or GM's to be sentimental. Just ask Hines Ward.

[storyteller0910]

If you are the owner and have to put $28 million on a bet you certainly do a lot to check your odds. This is particularly true after a miserable season that tells you nothing other than that you need to rebuild your team. Say they pay the $28M to Peyton and he gets hurt early. Another lost season. If they spend the money on rebuilding and have some Luck (pun intended) at least they save the season and move ahead a year early. Indy has to be looking at the Lions. Bradford has revitalized a miserable franchise. The Pack and the Favre/Rogers situation also has to be an inspiration.

In pro football, players are meat on a hook. There is no incentive for owners or GM's to be sentimental. Just ask Hines Ward.

Even more than that, say they pay the $28M to Peyton, and he comes back good as ever for the next three years, but the supporting cast is poor enough that they go 8-8. What then? Now Peyton retires for real at the end of this time, you've gained nothing, and you've rebuilt nothing.

This is the right move for the Colts, and frankly, the right move for Manning. That's not a good team in Indianapolis right now. Manning won't change that on his own. Luck won't either, of course, but Luck will (probably) still be in the NFL the next time the Colts have a Super Bowl caliber supporting cast with which to surround him, and Manning almost definitely will not be.

[furt]

I really don't get this - Indy is nothing without Peyton. If he's ridden off into the sunset in a few years, Indy would have been fine reputation-wise, but now.....Indy is not much with Peyton. They were the worst team in the league last year, and even if Manning comes back playing at the level he was at in 2009, it's implausible in the extreme that he takes them to a championship -- best case scenario, they get back to 9 or 10 wins, and get a wild-card berth. Big whoop.

And after that, it gets worse; in 2013, Manning will be 37. For reference:

Marino: Last good season at 35.
Fouts: Last good season at 34.
Unitas: Last good season at 34.
Aikman: Last good season at 33.
Favre: Six seasons after age 35; only good in two of them.
Montana: Had a good season at 38, then retired.
Elway: Had a good season at 38, then retired.

Mind you, in all of the above "good season" just means above-average. Almost none of those guys were producing at a top level when they were over 36. It's possible that Manning will come right back at his top form, and then hold it until he's 39 or 40 ... but if he does, it'll be something that's never been done before.

History tells us first-round QBs are basically 50/50 propositions; if Luck has even a 1 in 4 chance of being the kind of franchise QB that all the scouts see, it's still a better proposition than the odds of getting more than maybe 2-3 decent seasons out of Manning.

[kenobi 65]

Leaving Luck aside, why the assumption that Manning wouldn't do well?

Actually, RealityChuck said "Even if the team kept Manning, they were not likely to do all that well." He wasn't just talking about Manning.

As was well-documented last year, there were an awful lot of problems with the Colts in 2011, and only some of them could be traced to Manning's absence. A lot of their key players have grown long in the tooth, and they aren't getting any younger.

And, that's not even factoring in the fact that we still don't know if Manning's arm strength will return to the point where he can be an effective quarterback.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Even more than that, say they pay the $28M to Peyton, and he comes back good as ever for the next three years, but the supporting cast is poor enough that they go 8-8. What then? Now Peyton retires for real at the end of this time, you've gained nothing, and you've rebuilt nothing.

This is the right move for the Colts, and frankly, the right move for Manning. That's not a good team in Indianapolis right now. Manning won't change that on his own. Luck won't either, of course, but Luck will (probably) still be in the NFL the next time the Colts have a Super Bowl caliber supporting cast with which to surround him, and Manning almost definitely will not be.

And, just to add to your statement, that leaves the owners with $28 million to attract a few promising players in the rebuilding process.

I grew up in the "old school" of loyalty and whatever. I don't "like" the move but I understand it. Under current conditions I would release Manning if it would release $28 million that I could use to rebuild. That's sports business today. With a rebuild that would produce some wins and playoffs the $28 million could be turned into $100 million. Ask the Lions.

[aceplace57]

The ideal situation would have been for Manning to mentor Luck and shift into a player/coach position. Manning's salary and that huge $28 million roster bonus made that impossible.

It was just too much to expect Manning to change roles on the team and take a big pay cut. Instead he'll probably sign with another team for significantly less than what his Colts contract paid. Whether he can ever be a dependable starter again is very much a big question.

He's had 14 great seasons and headed to the Hall of Fame. It would be a shame to see him on a second rate team getting pounded week after week like Favre did with the Jets.

[Gray Ghost]

As a 49ers fan, I can only hope they're a dark horse to get him.

I would not be surprised at all if he does end up there and I'm surprised by media types who pooh-pooh the idea. It's a much better and more realistic destination than Houston. You guys are around $23M under the cap now, maybe more with rolling over 2011 space. Isn't Alex Smith a FA now? Why wouldn't you go get Manning? Even if he really is washed up, you still have Kaepernick (Who I thought was going to get the team last year, around Week 10.) You've plenty of salary to go chase a good FA WR, or see if Wayne wants to follow Manning to SF.

Houston, OTOH, already has a Top-8 to 10 QB, depending on who's being asked, no salary cap room---it'll be difficult to keep both Myers and Brisiel---and I'm not set on giving the team to Yates, should it all not work out with Manning.

[Munch]

Indy is so stupid. This is such a bad move - they'll get Luck, still have an old team that has been trained to work with Manning for 14 years, and sink into mediocrity.What team? They have a new coach. A new offensive coordinator. They've recycled RBs for the last 5 years. Reggie Wayne is leaving. Saturday will probably be released as well. Who, exactly, are you talking about when you say that this team has been with Manning for 14?

I mean, does the organization really think that they can get some QB phenom fresh out of college, drop him into a team that has been totally geared toward Manning for over a decade, and it's just gonna work?
That's exactly what they think. It's a pretty established plan that's worked many times across the NFL.

there is certainly no guarantee that Luck or anyone else has the stones to compete on a professional level.
This is pretty much the only thing you said that's correct. There's also no guarantee that Peyton Manning will be able to do it either, and that gamble costs the Colts $28 million PER YEAR.

Unless there's something bad we don't know about Manning's arm at this pointHe's not allowed anyone access to his workout sessions. Is there anything GOOD we know about Manning's arm at this point?

And, I bet that he would have been willing to reduce or even forgo his bonus to stay.Huh? Seriously - this doesn't make a lick of sense. You say you're a fan - have you been paying any attention at all for the last 8 months? First off, the $28 million isn't a bonus - it's his contract. Second, Irsay and Manning have been going back and forth behind the scenes for months trying to come up with a compromise.

I really don't get thisWell, make that two things correct...

[Munch]

*Whoops - the $28m is a bonus. Still hits the salary cap though, right?

Fun fact: Since Manning was drafted, Jim Irsay has paid him $0.20 every second.

[Hamlet]

That's exactly what they think. It's a pretty established plan that's worked many times across the NFL.It has? A vast majority of rookie QB's struggle in their first year, sometimes into their second, and/or never develop into an elite QB. Manning, if healthy, is an elite QB.

I understand the move from the Colts perspective, I just think it's the wrong one. They are a rebuilding team, but I think rebuilding a team is a ton easier with a great veteran presence. Having Manning there to teach/mentor/help Luck and the rest of the rookies would be a huge benefit, one I think would be worth the money spent. Add in the fact that Manning could help the team into the playoffs the next two years while Luck likely won't, I think it would have been a better decision to keep him for a couple years. It's not like this was an easy decision either way.

I think Manning could be the piece to help a playoff contending team to win the Super Bowl. I was shocked to hear that the 49ers aren't interested. I figured there, the Texans, and the Jets would be ideal spots for him to make the most for himself and the team for the last few years.

[Death of Rats]

Leaving Luck aside, why the assumption that Manning wouldn't do well?
He's old, he's busted and at the best he is maybe 60-80% of what he was, but the reports on his arm and recovery have been sketchy at best.

Excellent point - I got a little excited there :D

I bet we can find a way to get rid of him....:cool:

He could always move the team to LA! :)

*Whoops - the $28m is a bonus. Still hits the salary cap though, right?

Fun fact: Since Manning was drafted, Jim Irsay has paid him $0.20 every second.
Correct. The $28 mil is a roster bonus and hits the cap all at once. On top of this he gets his base pay and any performance bonuses for the year. In effect, keeping Manning for one year would cost Indy almost as much as Luck's entire rookie contract. For an old guy who may or may not be able to throw any more and who is one solid hit away from a nursing home.

ETA: Add to this the factor that Indy would have to pay the $28 before they get a solid answer on whether or not he can even play. Remember HIS doctors say he can the team medicl staff has not signed off on it, so they could pay him the money and have him out for med reasons without ever even taking a snap. Now the have lost Manning and lost a chance to make moves in FA.

[Munch]

It has? A vast majority of rookie QB's struggle in their first year, sometimes into their second, and/or never develop into an elite QB. Manning, if healthy, is an elite QB.
I said many, not majority. Plenty of teams succeed with good-not-great QBs, but that's because they're strong in most every other aspect on the field. The Colts are pretty abyssmal across the board. They have plenty of draft picks, and plenty of cap space. Drafting Luck is the easiest choice they'll make in the next 5 years.

[Hamlet]

I said many, not majority. Plenty of teams succeed with good-not-great QBs, but that's because they're strong in most every other aspect on the field. The Colts are pretty abyssmal across the board. They have plenty of draft picks, and plenty of cap space. Drafting Luck is the easiest choice they'll make in the next 5 years.Of course they draft Luck. I didn't think that was the issue. And I think he's a fantastic prospect. But I think the Colts best chances of success comes with Manning there for a couple more years while Luck and the new players learn the NFL game. I think throwing a rookie QB into a starting role on a "abyssmal" team would be a huge mistake, even if that rookie QB is Luck. Manning immediately makes the team better and a playoff contender (again, if healthy), while still helping the rookies develop. The $28 million is the huge sticking point, and Irsay decided that was too much risk. I think he's wrong, but, again, this isn't a no brainer and it is, after all, his team.

[Quercus]

Hmmm....the Saints are in a franchise tag dispute with Brees, and are getting tons of negative publicity every day because of the bounty scandal. Peyton Manning, son of Archie Manning, who I believe ranks third in all time popularity in New Orleans behind Jesus Christ and the Junkyard Dog, becomes available. I wonder.......It would be a nice story, but of course makes no sense at all for the Saints. It's possible to make a case that last-time-he-was-healthy Manning is an upgrade to Brees, but you can't say it would be very much of an upgrade. And Brees is, you know, healthy, last time we checked, and younger. Now if Peyton decides to go into coaching...

It would be a shame to see him on a second rate team getting pounded week after week like Favre did with the Jets.Yeah, um, that was, just horrible watching Favre's ego get pounded week and after week..

..WARNING ! THE NATIONAL EMOTION SERVICE HAS JUST ISSUED A SCHADENFREUDE ALERT... THE DANGER IS PARTICULARLY SEVERE FOR FANS OF NON-COLTS AFC SOUTH TEAMS, NEW ENGLAND, GREEN BAY, AND ALL TEAMS MENTIONED AS POSSIBLE DESTINATIONS FOR PEYTON MANNING... THIS IS A SCHADENFREUDE WATCH. NO ACTUAL SCHADENFREUDE HAS BEEN OBSERVED, BUT CONDITIONS CREATE A STRONG POSSIBILITY OF IT ARISING....


[Not that Manning has done nearly as much to make himself loathed as Favre. I like watching him lose, but don't really want to seem him hurt]

[Munch]

But I think the Colts best chances of success comes with Manning there for a couple more years while Luck and the new players learn the NFL game.Absolutely - that would have been ideal. But I see how very difficult that would have been for the Colts to organize - they have a LOT of holes to fill, and need the cap space to do it. For a long time everyone in Indy thought that Manning would just take a pay cut. I mean, why wouldn't he want to stay? But the chances of him succeeding here, even fully healthy, are really slim. There's no infrastructure left on the team, and there's been zero indication from Manning as to how well he's healing.

[Laggard]

As mentioned, Indy needs to develop their team. No team should ever be as bad as they were without their starting QB.

Look at GB. Rodgers sits out a game, Flynn comes in and throws for six touchdowns and 400 yards.

[Snickers]

For reference:

Marino: Last good season at 35.
Fouts: Last good season at 34.
Unitas: Last good season at 34.
Aikman: Last good season at 33.
Favre: Six seasons after age 35; only good in two of them.
Montana: Had a good season at 38, then retired.
Elway: Had a good season at 38, then retired.

Mind you, in all of the above "good season" just means above-average. Almost none of those guys were producing at a top level when they were over 36.

I guess you can call getting to the NFC Championship a "good season" for a just "above-average" quarterback not producing at a top level over 36. :dubious:

I mean, I'm not really a huge Favre fan, but saying that he wasn't producing at a top level in 2010 when he was what? 40? is a little disingenuous. Sure, his next year sucked, as did the one previous, but he was pretty stellar that year.

I kind of think it's ludicrous of Indy to let Manning go. The Packers gave the league the blueprint for developing an outstanding quarterback: let him come up behind the starter for a couple years to learn the system and really gain confidence. I don't care how "NFL-ready" Luck is, he's still going to be surprised by the speed and quickness in the NFL. Indy could give him a year, at least, behind a hall-of-fame QB and that would make a huge difference, IMO. But they won't.

[Hamlet]

Absolutely - that would have been ideal. But I see how very difficult that would have been for the Colts to organize - they have a LOT of holes to fill, and need the cap space to do it. For a long time everyone in Indy thought that Manning would just take a pay cut.That's what I thought for the longest time. Manning would agree to stretch that roster bonus over a few years, and the Colts would keep him. Even when things got ugly (Irsay strikes me as a dick), I figured they'd work it out, but they never did.

It's kinda sad, but both sides are to blame. I think the Colts are in for a long rebuilding, made much longer without Manning's presence though. If nothing else, it adds a bit more drama to the sport and gives us something to talk about. And in these long months of non-football, I need that.

[Gray Ghost]

I was surprised to read Hamlet's quote above, "I was shocked to hear that the 49ers aren't interested," and so I went about trying to source it. Per SI (http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/07/report-san-francisco-49ers-not-interested-in-peyton-manning/): Despite the urging of the former star wide receiver Jerry Rice, the San Francisco 49ers will not attempt to sign quarterback Peyton Manning, according to NFL.com.
The 49ers, instead, are intent on re-signing Alex Smith. A contract for Smith has already been placed on the table by San Francisco, sources have told NFL.com. Smith has the same agent as Manning, Tom Condon.

I can only imagine the 49ers aren't trusting that Manning can make it back to near his previous form, because I can't otherwise imagine why you'd give a new contract to Alex Smith, rather than kick the tires on Manning. For cryin' out loud, you already have your QB of the future (Kaepernick), who'll be ready to start in a year or two. My understanding is that he could start now and be effective, if you needed him to. Why are you trying to resign a QB who's above average at best (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb)?

[Gray Ghost]

...I don't care how "NFL-ready" Luck is, he's still going to be surprised by the speed and quickness in the NFL. Indy could give him a year, at least, behind a hall-of-fame QB and that would make a huge difference, IMO. But they won't.

I've said it before here, and I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I think Luck will get absolutely killed behind that patchwork O-line next year. Painter was by all accounts horrible, and Collins's best years were half a decade ago, but I thought they got absolutely murdered behind that line last year. Although, when I look at the O-line stats for pass protection, Indy only gave up a sack on 6.9% of the snaps (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol), which was average. Sure looked different in the few games I saw them play though.

[Hamlet]

I've said it before here, and I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I think Luck will get absolutely killed behind that patchwork O-line next year. Painter was by all accounts horrible, and Collins's best years were half a decade ago, but I thought they got absolutely murdered behind that line last year. Although, when I look at the O-line stats for pass protection, Indy only gave up a sack on 6.9% of the snaps (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol), which was average. Sure looked different in the few games I saw them play though.The average sack numbers were offset a bit by the number of penalties they gave up protecting the QB. They ranked 3rd in the NFL (according to pro football focus) in penalties. Add in the fact they were ranked #11 in QB hits (as opposed to sacks), and I don't think the sack total numbers were too indicative of how bad they were. Add in their poor rushing rankings, and it's a recipe for disaster.

[kenobi 65]

I guess you can call getting to the NFC Championship a "good season" for a just "above-average" quarterback not producing at a top level over 36. :dubious:

Which Favre actually did twice -- in 2007 for the Packers (at age 38) and in 2009 for the Vikings (at age 40). Those two seasons account for two of his four highest QB ratings over his career (and 2009 was his all-time best rating), so I agree, they're something better than just "above average".

That said, Favre is a pretty significant outlier in the discussion of productivity among older QBs.

[Barkis is Willin']

According to Mike and Mike this morning, Manning has said he would consider an incentive based contract with less guaranteed money, so some team might not actually be taking that big a risk. Especially if that team doesn't really have a good QB option.

The Colts, on the other hand, are dumb. They are not a young team. They do not have the pieces to allow Luck to succeed immediately. I predict they are in for a few painful rebuilding years.

[Marley23]

They had some painful years at the start of Manning's career, too. Their calculation may be that even if they can keep most of this team together, it'll be falling apart by the time Luck is really hitting his stride, so it's better to get it all over with now. On the other hand they've been very successful in evaluating talent over the years and they've also dumped their braintrust.

[Tom Scud]

Which Favre actually did twice -- in 2007 for the Packers (at age 38) and in 2009 for the Vikings (at age 40). Those two seasons account for two of his four highest QB ratings over his career (and 2009 was his all-time best rating), so I agree, they're something better than just "above average".

That said, Favre is a pretty significant outlier in the discussion of productivity among older QBs.

Warren Moon had good years at 39 and 41 (and was okay at 38 and probably better than he looked at 37 considering how the Oilers cratered once he left). But definitely another outlier.

[Marley23]

I didn't see the press conference, but it sounds like it was pretty emotional. I will note in passing that despite the bumps in the road, the Colts handled this better than the Packers handled the Favre/Rodgers situation. Then again, Manning hasn't made it as difficult for them as Favre did for the Packers.

[SenorBeef]

The thing no one has brought up here is that if they did retain Manning, they'd get an assload of picks for trading away the #1. Several first rounders. A great way to start rebuilding.

If I were the Colts, I'd probably try to retain Manning, auction off the #1 pick for huge gains, and then (assuming you still have a top pick - probably from the Browns) try to land RG3. I'd rather have RG3 + a few first rounders than Luck, RG3 could sit a year or two behind Manning.

Actually, Manning isn't really required for this plan. I'd still try to land RG3 + a few firsts over Luck even with Manning gone.

[Munch]

The Colts, on the other hand, are dumb. They are not a young team. They do not have the pieces to allow Luck to succeed immediately. I predict they are in for a few painful rebuilding years.

Uh, either a team is young, or they have pieces to succeed immediately. The Colts' problem is that they are both young and they lack enough pieces. Predicting a few painful years of rebuilding isn't a stretch, and I don't think there's a single person in the Colts' front office that would disagree with you.

I kind of think it's ludicrous of Indy to let Manning go. The Packers gave the league the blueprint for developing an outstanding quarterback: let him come up behind the starter for a couple years to learn the system and really gain confidence.That blueprint was written in the 80s with Montana and Young, and both blueprints involved an elite veteran QB with zero health issues working on a contract that wasn't prohibitive to filling holes in every other aspect of the team.

For those who think it was stupid for the Colts to let Manning go - are you suggesting that wherever he lands, he'll be getting more than $28 million/year? Because if the Colts REALLY want to resign him, they now have the opportunity to do so for much less.

[YogSosoth]

The ideal situation would have been for Manning to mentor Luck and shift into a player/coach position. Manning's salary and that huge $28 million roster bonus made that impossible.

It was just too much to expect Manning to change roles on the team and take a big pay cut. Instead he'll probably sign with another team for significantly less than what his Colts contract paid. Whether he can ever be a dependable starter again is very much a big question.


If he likes the city and the team so much, and the owner likes him that much....then why not? I don't get it, but I don't know much about football so maybe there's some weird reason.

According to most people, they cut him, save the $28 million bonus, and he goes to another team. Why not cut him, save the $28 million, and get him back at a lower rate or whatever pay he's deserved (I assume like that NBA, there is a minimum dollar amount they have to pay him)? Or put a clause into his contract where he gets paid only for games played, or dependent on his medical status?

[Duke]

If I were the Colts, I'd probably try to retain Manning, auction off the #1 pick for huge gains, and then (assuming you still have a top pick - probably from the Browns) try to land RG3. I'd rather have RG3 + a few first rounders than Luck, RG3 could sit a year or two behind Manning.

No way is RG3 going to last until the fourth pick. The Rams already allegedly have suitors for their #2 from teams specifically looking to draft RG3. And if they didn't trade their pick or draft him #2, I'm sure the Vikings would be reconsidering Christian Ponder's future.

So the question wouldn't have been "RG3 + some first rounders or Luck". If they really wanted RG3, they'd probably just have to draft him first. St. Louis doesn't want to draft a QB and there's nobody else on the board worth a #1. It's RG3 vs. Luck, period. And Indy has already signalled their hand on that.

[Marley23]

Because they don't want to deal with the craziness that would come with benching him, and he doesn't want to be a backup. They've decided they want a fresh start with a new quarterback.

[YogSosoth]

Because they don't want to deal with the craziness that would come with benching him, and he doesn't want to be a backup. They've decided they want a fresh start with a new quarterback.

If he's still good, just with a shaky neck, why not play him until if and when he gets injured? A Peyton that can play deserves to start over Andrew Luck, and if he gets hurt, well then he can't complain about not playing, right?

[Munch]

If he's still good, just with a shaky neck, why not play him until if and when he gets injured? A Peyton that can play deserves to start over Andrew Luck, and if he gets hurt, well then he can't complain about not playing, right?

His neck is fine. It's the nerves to his arm that are now the issue.

[Marley23]

Like I said, they don't want to deal with the quarterback controversy and assorted craziness, and they evidently don't think the team would be very good even if they kept Manning. So why keep him? They decided to start over.

[Hamlet]

Like I said, they don't want to deal with the quarterback controversy and assorted craziness, and they evidently don't think the team would be very good even if they kept Manning. So why keep him?I don't think there would be a quarterback controversy if they kept Manning. Everyone would know Manning gets the start and Luck learns behind him for a couple years. The "assorted craziness" is of their own making though. They decided to start over.It's a ton easier to start over with at least one major piece in place. I think it would be incredibly stupid starting Luck this year on such a crappy team, it would hurt his development more than less. Draft Luck, get him some protection, and let him learn for a year or two.

I really don't understand the desire to see Luck starting right away, because, by and large, it doesn't work out that well if he has crap around him to start. If he's the great quarterback they think he is, he'll still have a long career, maybe 10-12 years. Having him sit (or to my mind any rookie QB) isn't going to hurt him.

[Marley23]

I don't think there would be a quarterback controversy if they kept Manning. Everyone would know Manning gets the start and Luck learns behind him for a couple years. The "assorted craziness" is of their own making though. It's a ton easier to start over with at least one major piece in place. I think it would be incredibly stupid starting Luck this year on such a crappy team, it would hurt his development more than less. Draft Luck, get him some protection, and let him learn for a year or two.
I'm not saying they made the right call; I'm just offering a version of their rationale. I've said before that if I were in charge over there, I'd have tried to restructure Manning's contract.

[Munch]

Is there any reason you have that Irsay didn't try to restructure his contract? Because it seems like that's what he's been trying to do for about a year now.

[Marley23]

I didn't think they made any particular effort to redo his contract, but I could be wrong about that.

[Munch]

Irsay has publicly stated that he'd have taken Peyton back if Manning had agreed to renegotiate and agree to certain conditions. How serious those negotiations were, or how realistic the offers were, are unknown.

But I can assure everyone that every single aspect of this situation has been hammered to death in Indianapolis. No one is excited to lose Manning, no one wanted to lose Manning. But there just wasn't a better option at this point.

[Barkis is Willin']

Uh, either a team is young, or they have pieces to succeed immediately. The Colts' problem is that they are both young and they lack enough pieces. Predicting a few painful years of rebuilding isn't a stretch, and I don't think there's a single person in the Colts' front office that would disagree with you.

I don't think the Colts really are young, though. At least, they don't have any young stars that come to mind. Their best players are mostly past their prime. Either way, yes, a rebuild is in order.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

That was a pretty emotional press conference. I have always liked Peyton Manning even though I'm not really a fan of the Colts. Now I like him even more.

[HookerChemical]

I was surprised to read Hamlet's quote above, "I was shocked to hear that the 49ers aren't interested," and so I went about trying to source it. Per SI (http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/07/report-san-francisco-49ers-not-interested-in-peyton-manning/):

I can only imagine the 49ers aren't trusting that Manning can make it back to near his previous form, because I can't otherwise imagine why you'd give a new contract to Alex Smith, rather than kick the tires on Manning. For cryin' out loud, you already have your QB of the future (Kaepernick), who'll be ready to start in a year or two. My understanding is that he could start now and be effective, if you needed him to. Why are you trying to resign a QB who's above average at best (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb)?

I have mixed feelings about the 49ers going for Manning. It's pretty clear that they're a good team with Smith. With a good running game and a great defense, they need a quarterback that doesn't make mistakes. I think Smith's big breakthrough this year was that he didn't feel the pressure of a #1 pick or that the game rested on his arm. He could throw the ball away or take a sack rather than throwing an interception. He didn't have a lot of TD's as far as elite quarterback go (17), but he had only a handful of interceptions (5!). That's what the team needed.

The big question I have is which Smith will show up next year. Will it be the conservative but reliable QB of 2011 who showed occasional moments of brilliance, or the panicky and ineffective QB of the previous years. I think we'll get the reliable QB, but there's that nagging doubt in the back of my mind.

Even with a less effective Manning, you're getting a QB who makes good decisions. Even if he loses some mobility and arm strength, he'd work for the 49ers if he played the role Smith played in 2011. The trouble is that he's Peyton Manning, and I don't think the 49ers office and coaching keeps their jobs if they have Peyton Manning play Smith's role.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I have mixed feelings about the 49ers going for Manning. It's pretty clear that they're a good team with Smith. With a good running game and a great defense, they need a quarterback that doesn't make mistakes. I think Smith's big breakthrough this year was that he didn't feel the pressure of a #1 pick or that the game rested on his arm. He could throw the ball away or take a sack rather than throwing an interception. He didn't have a lot of TD's as far as elite quarterback go (17), but he had only a handful of interceptions (5!). That's what the team needed.

The big question I have is which Smith will show up next year. Will it be the conservative but reliable QB of 2011 who showed occasional moments of brilliance, or the panicky and ineffective QB of the previous years. I think we'll get the reliable QB, but there's that nagging doubt in the back of my mind.

Even with a less effective Manning, you're getting a QB who makes good decisions. Even if he loses some mobility and arm strength, he'd work for the 49ers if he played the role Smith played in 2011. The trouble is that he's Peyton Manning, and I don't think the 49ers office and coaching keeps their jobs if they have Peyton Manning play Smith's role.

I don't see Manning and Harbaugh working together.

[Great Antibob]

I don't see Manning and Harbaugh working together.

Harbaugh's more run/defense scheme or because Manning replaced Harbaugh as the Colt's QB?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Harbaugh's more run/defense scheme or because Manning replaced Harbaugh as the Colt's QB?

Because I think Harbaugh is more of an alpha male coach and Manning would essentially supplant the offensive coordinator, and yeah, because Manning has never operated in an offense that wasn't tailored to him throwing the ball a lot.

[furt]

I guess you can call getting to the NFC Championship a "good season" for a just "above-average" quarterback not producing at a top level over 36. :dubious:

I mean, I'm not really a huge Favre fan, but saying that he wasn't producing at a top level in 2010 when he was what? 40? is a little disingenuous. Sure, his next year sucked, as did the one previous, but he was pretty stellar that year.Favre was terrific in 2009 and 2007. He was deeply mediocre in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010. (71 TD, 88 INT in those 4 years) Hence:
Favre: Six seasons after age 35; only good in two of them.

If you're going to say someone's wrong, first figure out what's being said.

Warren Moon had good years at 39 and 41 (and was okay at 38 and probably better than he looked at 37 considering how the Oilers cratered once he left). But definitely another outlier.Moon also had crappy seasons at 37, 38, 40, and 42.

[Marley23]

If the Colts are pressing their Luck, I guess that means the franchise will be saying "Big money, big money... no Whammies!"

[furt]

I think it would be incredibly stupid starting Luck this year on such a crappy team, it would hurt his development more than less. Why? I've never heard that Luck is some skittish guy who would crumble under pressure ... just the opposite. Manning started from day one on a horrible team; other greats have, too.

If they wanted to keep Manning around, that's a defensible choice; but I don't buy the "Luck would be scarred for life" idea.

[SenorBeef]

I hate the "QBs who start too early are damaged" bullshit, personally. I see it constantly on the Browns boards by the army of people who never want to draft real talent at QB. "Oh we'll just ruin him"

The idea that NFL QBs - who got to where they were because they were the hardest workers, most competitive, toughest guys through multiple levels of football, are actually 6 year old girls who will cry and give up if they face adversity just pisses me off. Maybe in extreme cases, like Tim Couch and David Carr, you could make a case that they take a physical beating that can hamper their careers, but unless you're on an expansion team with some of the worst talent ever assembled, it's not something to worry about. Great QBs find ways to be great in any situation.

[Quercus]

I hate the "QBs who start too early are damaged" bullshit, personally. I see it constantly on the Browns boards by the army of people who never want to draft real talent at QB. "Oh we'll just ruin him"

The idea that NFL QBs - who got to where they were because they were the hardest workers, most competitive, toughest guys through multiple levels of football, are actually 6 year old girls who will cry and give up if they face adversity just pisses me off. Maybe in extreme cases, like Tim Couch and David Carr, you could make a case that they take a physical beating that can hamper their careers, but unless you're on an expansion team with some of the worst talent ever assembled, it's not something to worry about. Great QBs find ways to be great in any situation.Well, you might have a point about facing adversity, but there's a difference between 'QBs who start too early are damaged' and 'QB's who have a year or two of practice and easier situations learn quicker'. The second one may or may not be generally true, but it's at least very plausible. The pro game is much quicker than college, defenses are way more sophisticated, reads are harder, and mismatches are much less lopsided, so it's not ridiculous to expect some kind of learning curve even for very good college QBs. And it's not ridiculous to find that the learning curve is easier to traverse when there's less pressure and distraction, even for the most mentally and physically tough individuals.
Again, I'm no expert in QB careers, so I'm not saying that there's evidence the second statement is true or not, but it's plausible.

[Barkis is Willin']

Because I think Harbaugh is more of an alpha male coach and Manning would essentially supplant the offensive coordinator, and yeah, because Manning has never operated in an offense that wasn't tailored to him throwing the ball a lot.

Yeah, Harbaugh and Manning just seem to have very clashing personalities. Tony Dungy was the perfect coach for Manning because he let Manning be the offensive leader, but Dungy still got respect from the team. I don't see Harbaugh letting someone else lead any part of his team.

[markdash]

Say what you want about Harbaugh not wanting to relinquish power to his quarterback, but I don't think a run-first offense is a problem at all. First of all, the Niners had a run-first offense last year because their quarterback was Alex Smith, and not someone like Peyton Manning.

In his last year at Stanford (2010), the Cardinal rushed at virtually the same frequency as they passed. Not "pass-wacky," certainly, but when you're gaining 5 yards per run, running a lot is a smart move.

[etv78]

Should TB kick the tires? IMO It's no different than Houston or the Jets.

[furt]

Well, you might have a point about facing adversity, but there's a difference between 'QBs who start too early are damaged' and 'QB's who have a year or two of practice and easier situations learn quicker'. AFAICT, Hamlet was advancing the former, not the latter.

Should TB kick the tires? IMO It's no different than Houston or the Jets.It's significantly different than both, in that both of those teams are already contenders. Also, Josh Freeman is still in the "promising young QB" category; i.e. he may still improve. Schaub and Sanchez are pretty much known quantities at this point, for better or worse (respectively).

[Marley23]

The Browns say they're not looking at Manning, but I don't think anyone really expected them to go for him since they've been talking to the Rams about trading for the #2 pick and drafting Robert Griffin for months. Manning supposedly wants to sign with a new team quickly - which is in his interest anyway, since he can go anywhere and free agency has not started yet. Once free agency begins, the pool for his services starts to shrink and then the draft is approaching.

[Marley23]

It looks like the Broncos are being surprisingly aggressive in going after Manning - which I think is a great idea, for whatever it's worth. The Chiefs may have already offered him a contract.

Meanwhile the Colts are not being shy about this whole "we're going down the crapper headfirst" thing. They're shopping Dwight Freeney and have released Gary Brackett, Dallas Clark, Melvin Bullitt, Joseph Addai, and (I guess this was a gimme) Curtis Painter.

[Kolga]

It looks like the Broncos are being surprisingly aggressive in going after Manning - which I think is a great idea, for whatever it's worth.

If Manning, who is running neck-and-neck for the title of My Future Ex-Husband, can knock Tebow out of the goddamn news mills that won't stop covering his every twitch, all my dreams will come true. I don't even care if he'd be any good on the field.

[Frank]

It looks like the Broncos are being surprisingly aggressive in going after Manning - which I think is a great idea, for whatever it's worth.
Channel 4 is going spastic about it even as I watch.

They (the Broncos, not Channel 4) are offering him whatever offense he wants to run, and tons of money. I think it's a good idea too. He can play for two or three years, and if he can't teach Tebow how to be a pro quarterback, no one can.

[etv78]

Weren't Sanchize and Freeman in the same draft?

[etv78]

Anyone else surprised Indy's blowing it up?

[DCnDC]

Manning supposedly wants to sign with a new team quickly - which is in his interest anyway, since he can go anywhere and free agency has not started yet. Once free agency begins, the pool for his services starts to shrink and then the draft is approaching.

Not to mention that whoever signs Manning would have a huge bargaining chip to negotiate with free agents. I'm certain that every free agent receiver is going to be putting in a call to whoever signs him, and I'm sure that Manning will have a lot of input in who that team goes after.

[Enginerd]

Anyone else surprised Indy's blowing it up?

Why wouldn't they? Once they decided to move on from Manning, there's no reason to keep a bunch of veterans around for a last run at the playoffs. Last year made it pretty obvious that the current team was nothing without Manning, so they need to do what they can to move on.

The only thing that's even a little surprising is shopping Freeney... but he just turned 32, has a $19M cap charge this year, and isn't willing to restructure his contract. If he doesn't want to pay for a rebuilding team, there's nothing they can do to make him, and they may as well get what they can for him and bring in some younger players.

[Gray Ghost]

I'm channelling Dr. Obvious, but I think we can cross Washington off the list of possible destinations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/washington-redskins-trade-for-no-2-pick/2012/03/09/gIQAH3va2R_story.html)...

Add me to the "not surprised Indy is blowing it up" crowd. I wonder if Wayne or Clark will follow Manning wherever he goes?

[furt]

Weren't Sanchize and Freeman in the same draft?Yes, but Freeman was excellent in 2009 before regressing last year (as did the whole team); one can hope he returns to that form. Sanchez has been in the league for three years, and without looking, I don't think he has ever had four good games in a row.

Anyone else surprised Indy's blowing it up?As has been said: once you decide not to bring back Manning, all the rest follows. Keeping Clark around as a reliable underneath target might be a good idea, but there's now no reason for them to have more than a handful of guys over 30.

[Marley23]

The Jets gave Sanchez a contract extension, so they've made their choice. A consensus seems to be developing that it'll be Miami, Denver, or Arizona, with some of the other teams being out of the running because they're too terrible. It's not unreasonable to assume that Washington is trading up in the draft because they got the sense they didn't have a shot at Manning.

[ElvisL1ves]

... and he lives in south Florida in the offseason. FWIW.

[Hamlet]

The Jets gave Sanchez a contract extension, so they've made their choice.Great. Now I won't have to worry that Rex Ryan will finally live up to one of his stupid guarantees. Unless he guarantees they won't make it to the Super Bowl.

[dalej42]

Lots of coverage about Manning visiting the Cardinals today. The Cards do have one of the best receivers in the NFL in Larry Fitzgerald. Ten games in good weather or a dome (8 home, at SF, at STL) and no Tim Tebow nonsense to deal with. He'd have a capable backup in John Skelton assuming Kolb is cut.

[Hamlet]

The Tennessee Titans are in the game. (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120311/SPORTS01/120311018/Titans-owner-Bud-Adams-wants-sign-Peyton-Manning?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|FRONTPAGE)

"“He is the man I want. Period,” Adams [Titans owner] said. “And the people that work for me understand that. They know who I want. I want Mr. Manning with the Titans and I will be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.”

I can't tell if this is simply an owner venting, but I will note that the Titans drafted Vince Young because Adams wanted him over the desires of the coach and GM at the time. It would be interesting to have Manning back in Tennessee, and playing twice against the Colts would certainly be appealing.

[Lamar Mundane]

Denver media are reporting that it is between Denver and Arizona and Manning is done with visits. They say a decision will come on Tuesday.

They also say it is most likely Denver. The Tebow fans are in meltdown mode.

[Marley23]

ESPN agrees the Broncos and Cardinals are the favorites, however, they say there's little chance he'll make his decision by Tuesday. I don't think the Titans are really in this thing - otherwise they'd be talking to him instead of having their owner speak to the media.

[wmulax93]

I'd love to see him here in Arizona. Hell, I'd drive out to Glendale to see him play, and I don't even like the Cards! (Not-so-secret-Secret: most people around Phoenix like another team because so few people are actually FROM this place.)

[Frank]

ESPN agrees the Broncos and Cardinals are the favorites, however, they say there's little chance he'll make his decision by Tuesday.
I think he will. His signing (or not signing) with a team is going to make a tremendous difference in how they approach the free agent market. Manning is fully aware that whoever he signs with is still going to need to hit the ground running on free agents and he's never struck me as the type of prima donna that would milk the situation for ego.

I'll be surprised if he doesn't announce his decision today.

[Marley23]

Manning is fully aware that whoever he signs with is still going to need to hit the ground running on free agents and he's never struck me as the type of prima donna that would milk the situation for ego.
I don't think he's being a prima donna. I think they're saying he is just taking some time to make this decision. He was released Wednesday, he's heard pitches from two or maybe three teams, and he's supposedly putting off some exams and throwing.

[Munch]

I don't think the Titans are really in this thing - otherwise they'd be talking to him instead of having their owner speak to the media.

There's been a very vocal group in Tennessee that's been lobbying for Manning to come, and I bet it's gotten a ton of fan support. Whether the owner wants Manning or not, it's good business for him to at least say he really wants Manning.

[Marley23]

It definitely is.

[Quercus]

..if he can't teach Tebow how to be a pro quarterback, no one can.Yeah, Manning must be a great teacher: look at how well his backup performed this last year. Oh, wait. Hmm...

[Frank]

Yeah, Manning must be a great teacher: look at how well his backup performed this last year. Oh, wait. Hmm...
It's moot anyway. The Broncos have all but admitted that if Manning is signed, Tebow is gone--most likely to Jacksonville.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Yeah, Manning must be a great teacher: look at how well his backup performed this last year. Oh, wait. Hmm...

I overheard (what I can only assume is a rumor) this morning on Mike and Mike that Jacksonville is somehow involved in this...the Broncos get Manning and ship Tebow to Jacksonville in exchange for Gabbert, purportedly for Gabbert to be groomed as the heir apparent under Manning. Weird. Why wouldn't the Broncos just keep Tebow instead? He's a PR/money/hype machine.

ETA: Curses, foiled by Frank!

[Marley23]

Why wouldn't the Broncos just keep Tebow instead? He's a PR/money/hype machine.
Notice how your list of his qualities doesn't include "good quarterback?" Your backup QB isn't going to bring in a lot of money or hype anyway.

[etv78]

I agree that once Manning was gone, little point in NOT pulling the pin on the grenade. I'd lovqe to see the Tebow/Gabbert trade once hmey get Manning.

[SenorBeef]

I really hate the "gave up X picks" for a player, because you wouldn't say "you gave up X pick to draft a player", you'd just say "you drafted that player". "Gave up" suggests to me what you're giving away in value. If you ignore what you're getting back, you could have a situaton in which you have the #25 pick in round one, add a 6th rounder and trade up to #23, add a 5th rounder and trade up to #20, add a 4th rounder and trade up to #18, and then you gave up 4 first round picks to draft the guy at #18.

[Lamar Mundane]

Why wouldn't the Broncos just keep Tebow instead? He's a PR/money/hype machine.

ETA: Curses, foiled by Frank!

If Tebow were just Tim Tebow, they might keep him and give him a shot to develop, but he's not just Tim Tebow. He comes with an army of rabid fans who can't see a single fault with him and who flood radio talk show with ignorant babble, and curse the coaches and management for failing to see things exactly like they do.

Honestly, John Elway and John Fox and the Broncos can't get rid of Tebow fast enough.

I can't imagine why any NFL GM would voluntarily bring Tebow's Army upon himself. I think Elway would let him go for a box of kicking tees right now.

[garygnu]

As a 49ers fan, I can only hope they're a dark horse to get him.
Bumping this thread to say I was right about the 49ers taking a look.

[SenorBeef]

Cards are keeping Kolb. Possible bullet dodged there for the Browns.

[Duke]

Denver Post and SI (http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/16/report-broncos-offer-for-peyton-manning-is-five-years-60-million/?sct=hp_t2_a6&eref=sihp) are reporting that the Broncos plan to offer Manning a $60 million, five-year contract. Good Lord, if Payton plays another five years he'll be retiring to an operating room.

[furt]

Denver Post and SI (http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/16/report-broncos-offer-for-peyton-manning-is-five-years-60-million/?sct=hp_t2_a6&eref=sihp) are reporting that the Broncos plan to offer Manning a $60 million, five-year contract. Good Lord, if Payton plays another five years he'll be retiring to an operating room.He'd be 41; others have played that long, he's among the best there is at avoiding hits, and his doctors have said he's at no more risk than anyone else.

I don't know that he will play that long, nor that they'll want him to under that deal but it makes sense to offer him to an until-the-end-of-his-career contract.

[Skammer]

Denver Post and SI (http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/16/report-broncos-offer-for-peyton-manning-is-five-years-60-million/?sct=hp_t2_a6&eref=sihp) are reporting that the Broncos plan to offer Manning a $60 million, five-year contract. Good Lord, if Payton plays another five years he'll be retiring to an operating room.
That's nothing. Shoney's (http://shoneys.com/) restaurant has offered Manning free pancakes (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120316/NEWS01/303160086/Shoney-s-offers-Peyton-Manning-free-pancakes-every-day-Titan) every day he is a member of the Tennessee Titans. Free pancakes! Every day! Checkmate!

[garygnu]

It's a general rule that you can ignore the last two years of most veteran contracts.

[Roland Orzabal]

Peyton Manning...backed up by Tim Tebow...on the Denver Broncos. All I need is for Jerry Jones to buy them and it'll be everything in the NFL that I ever hated all rolled up into one delicious ball of needs-an-ass-whuppin'. If this happens (the Manning thing — Jones won't leave Texas for fear of being shot on sight, and the only potential replacement, Al Davis, finally got around to admitting he was dead), then 2012 is going to be one hell of an interesting year for this Charger fan.

[SenorBeef]

Manning chooses Denver.

[Duke]

How did his agent convince him to turn down that Shoney's pancake deal?