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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
His neck is fine. It’s the nerves to his arm that are now the issue.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I didn’t think they made any particular effort to redo his contract, but I could be wrong about that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.