Peyton's Contract Discussion MEGA MERGE

[ruksak]

IF Peyton stays healthy this will work, BUT.... I am seriously concerned about this neck issue 2-4 years down the road. Herniated and bulging disks just do not go away. If I am Jim Irsay I am very nervous about making a pro rated long term contract (signing bonus) with Manning. But as we all know, he simply has no other choice.... we don't have a Young or Rodgers sitting on the bench.

Slight derail....

This town ain't big enough for two Pepe's.

[John Dee]

I believe the signing bonus can only be a certain percentage of the total value of the contract. I may be wrong.

The D Lineman from Carolina just signed a 72M contract with 30 guaranteed so.... if there is a limit it is upwards of 50%.

[Girlzarefanstoo]

Slight derail....

This town ain't big enough for two Pepe's.

lol! Too funny!

As to Peyton's bulging disks - I don't know the medical prognosis, but my husband has disk problems in his lower back and it's completely disabled him and NO ONE is hitting him day in and day out. This repeat injury has me very worried.

[John Dee]

Slight derail....

This town ain't big enough for two Pepe's.

No derail, just stating real concerns. JMO anyway.... And Manning is worth every penny he gets. I simpy think the Colts really need to be careful with this nerve issue.

the real Pepe Le Pew...

[ruksak]

No derail, just stating real concerns. JMO anyway.... And Manning is worth every penny he gets. I simpy think the Colts really need to be careful with this nerve issue.

the real Pepe Le Pew...

lol no, I meant I was derailing to point out that you have stolen my persona. Two Le Pews is one too many.

lol....kk back on track...

[John Dee]

lol! Too funny!

As to Peyton's bulging disks - I don't know the medical prognosis, but my husband has disk problems in his lower back and it's completely disabled him and NO ONE is hitting him day in and day out. This repeat injury has me very worried.

Yep, I have dealt with lower back disk issues for the last 7 years. And neck issues are considered more severe. There is simply no cure for a bad back or neck issue. Doctors can only do so much. The nerves in the spine do not heal or regenerate. The pain going down Peyton's arm will likely be around to some degree the rest of his career.

I am worried also.

[John Dee]

lol no, I meant I was derailing to point out that you have stolen my persona. Two Le Pews is one too many.

lol....kk back on track...

heehe... roger that.... :FBcheesy:

[luvdacolts67]

I hate seeing Mike Hart go. Watched some old games and I really liked this guy.

[everybodysgotone]

Problem is until deal done we dont know our cap room so cant determine whow can sign , thus players we tageted like weddle we lost while nany teams have reached agreements with own & with free agents

Exactly.

The 25M per is too high in this new rolled-back salary & cap corrected era. I mean....the cap goes from 129M to 120M yet Manning gets a huge raise from 100M for 9yrs (although incentives shortened it to 7yrs) to 25M/yr for ____ (fill in the blank years)...but I'm going to guess 5yrs for a grand total of 125M. Really. This would be an anvil around the team's neck and I'd be prepared to see him walk to the highest bidder at that price. A lot of talent could be bought for 125M. Let him play his 2011 franchise tag year if a reasonable contract can't be agreed upon & then throw efforts into the 2012 Andrew Luck derby since trading up under the new CBA rules makes complete sense. We'd have 4 years to build a squad around Luck while his salary was low before having to invest a huge amount in QB again. I want Indy to bring home titles more than anything else, and that includes an ongoing affair with Manning while underachieving in the playoffs thanks in part to financially handicapped teams.

And now in the short term we all sit & wait on the Manning deal while it holds everything else up. Awesome. This is more backwards than ever because this year presents a unique opportunity to aquire players. We live & die by Manning too much.

[Lodogg2221]

Actually, Irsay said "under the system, you cannot pay a player $25 million dollars. It’s just not going to work and you’re not going to be able to compete."

He did NOT say that $25mil was the max...not sure how that got goofed up, but there is a big difference in saying $25mil is the max and he wont pay $25mil.

Actual quotes instead of interpretation here:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/25/irsay-on-manning-theres-only-so-much-you-can-pay-one-player/

[21isSuperman]

It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out. Hopefully we don't go over the cap and have a decent amount of cap space left after signing Peyton.

[Superman]

Exactly.

The 25M per is too high in this new rolled-back salary & cap corrected era. I mean....the cap goes from 129M to 120M yet Manning gets a huge raise from 100M for 9yrs (although incentives shortened it to 7yrs) to 25M/yr for ____ (fill in the blank years)...but I'm going to guess 5yrs for a grand total of 125M. Really. This would be an anvil around the team's neck and I'd be prepared to see him walk to the highest bidder at that price. A lot of talent could be bought for 125M. Let him play his 2011 franchise tag year if a reasonable contract can't be agreed upon & then throw efforts into the 2012 Andrew Luck derby since trading up under the new CBA rules makes complete sense. We'd have 4 years to build a squad around Luck while his salary was low before having to invest a huge amount in QB again. I want Indy to bring home titles more than anything else, and that includes an ongoing affair with Manning while underachieving in the playoffs thanks in part to financially handicapped teams.

And now in the short term we all sit & wait on the Manning deal while it holds everything else up. Awesome. This is more backwards than ever because this year presents a unique opportunity to aquire players. We live & die by Manning too much.

I think this is coo-coo bananas. Crazy talk.

First of all, this approach assumes that Manning is the only highly paid player on the team. It also creates the impression that our front office would be spending money on free agents if not for Manning's contract. Both ideas are misguided, to say the least. We keep hearing about Eric Weddle, but wake up, people -- we were never going to sign Eric Weddle, not for $8 million a year, nor should we have. I'd rather overpay Manning at the most important position on the field than overpay at a position of far lesser importance.

I'll also point out that any argument that suggests that we consider letting our All-World quarterback walk in favor of trying to set ourselves up to draft a college quarterback that's not even in the draft yet should be dismissed summarily. The NFL is a quarterback driven league, and if you have a really good one -- I'm talking top five or six -- you have a chance to win every year. Not only that, but there's a track record over the last decade of top level collegiate quarterbacks being unable to live up to their hype, to adjust to the NFL and become really good quarterbacks. There are several first rounders that are backups or out of the league. There are several that are really good, too, but a bird in the hand, right? You don't throw away your prized possession because you might have a chance at someone next season. As I said, crazy talk.

Then, and most importantly (and I think most relevant) is the fact that Manning's contract doesn't have to handicap the team. We don't even know what it's going to be yet, so this is entirely premature. But assuming it averages somewhere around $20 million a year, that doesn't preclude us from being able to sign and pay other players. There are players on the roster that are actually overpaid, given their production. They are a much bigger problem for us in the grand scheme of things than a $20 million/year contract for the best quarterback in the NFL.

And then there's the oft-repeated "we live and die by Manning too much" meme. Look at last season. I don't care who you pay at other positions, we don't win 10 games last season without Manning playing quarterback last year. The difference between us being 13-3 and having a first round bye (and possibly home-field throughout the playoffs) was a bad three week stretch by Manning, which underscores the point perfectly: We rely on him playing to a high standard every week, which he does, every week, and that's the biggest reason we're a good team.

If you want an elite-level quarterback, you have to pay him like he's an elite level quarterback. The average pay of the top five highest paid quarterbacks in 2010 was $20 million. If the decision is between paying Manning the market rate or letting him walk and replacing him with a rookie, I think the decision is clear. The Colts best chance to win is with Manning, even at $20-25 million a year.

[everybodysgotone]

I think this is coo-coo bananas. Crazy talk.

First of all, this approach assumes that Manning is the only highly paid player on the team. It also creates the impression that our front office would be spending money on free agents if not for Manning's contract. Both ideas are misguided, to say the least. We keep hearing about Eric Weddle, but wake up, people -- we were never going to sign Eric Weddle, not for $8 million a year, nor should we have. I'd rather overpay Manning at the most important position on the field than overpay at a position of far lesser importance.

I'll also point out that any argument that suggests that we consider letting our All-World quarterback walk in favor of trying to set ourselves up to draft a college quarterback that's not even in the draft yet should be dismissed summarily. The NFL is a quarterback driven league, and if you have a really good one -- I'm talking top five or six -- you have a chance to win every year. Not only that, but there's a track record over the last decade of top level collegiate quarterbacks being unable to live up to their hype, to adjust to the NFL and become really good quarterbacks. There are several first rounders that are backups or out of the league. There are several that are really good, too, but a bird in the hand, right? You don't throw away your prized possession because you might have a chance at someone next season. As I said, crazy talk.

Then, and most importantly (and I think most relevant) is the fact that Manning's contract doesn't have to handicap the team. We don't even know what it's going to be yet, so this is entirely premature. But assuming it averages somewhere around $20 million a year, that doesn't preclude us from being able to sign and pay other players. There are players on the roster that are actually overpaid, given their production. They are a much bigger problem for us in the grand scheme of things than a $20 million/year contract for the best quarterback in the NFL.

And then there's the oft-repeated "we live and die by Manning too much" meme. Look at last season. I don't care who you pay at other positions, we don't win 10 games last season without Manning playing quarterback last year. The difference between us being 13-3 and having a first round bye (and possibly home-field throughout the playoffs) was a bad three week stretch by Manning, which underscores the point perfectly: We rely on him playing to a high standard every week, which he does, every week, and that's the biggest reason we're a good team.

If you want an elite-level quarterback, you have to pay him like he's an elite level quarterback. The average pay of the top five highest paid quarterbacks in 2010 was $20 million. If the decision is between paying Manning the market rate or letting him walk and replacing him with a rookie, I think the decision is clear. The Colts best chance to win is with Manning, even at $20-25 million a year.

Same as the talk in the other thread. Same conclusion for both of us. Story over. Lookit....we crush everyone in the regular season and have a sub .500 postseason record in the Manning era where the best teams get the better of us. That is an historic fact. We have less success than other dominant teams in the postseason when the W's count most. I'm aware of all the stats both pro/con as well as the salaries for everyone else on the roster. I'm a huge Manning fan but not if the cost is 12-4 AFC South champs then one & done postseason. When our usual formula for a win comes together it looks great.....and when it doesn't we get to watch one man go out & try to compensate for an entire team. If we keep doing the same thing year in and year out under the same formula and never get another championship the organization will be rightly viewed as foolish. Bottom line is a well paid Manning is different than a handicap the team paid Manning. I don't want to see the wheelchair version.

[Superman]

Same as the talk in the other thread. Same conclusion for both of us. Story over. Lookit....we crush everyone in the regular season and have a sub .500 postseason record in the Manning era where the best teams get the better of us. That is an historic fact. We have less success than other dominant teams in the postseason when the W's count most. I'm aware of all the stats both pro/con as well as the salaries for everyone else on the roster. I'm a huge Manning fan but not if the cost is 12-4 AFC South champs then one & done postseason. When our usual formula for a win comes together it looks great.....and when it doesn't we get to watch one man go out & try to compensate for an entire team. If we keep doing the same thing year in and year out under the same formula and never get another championship the organization will be rightly viewed as foolish. Bottom line is a well paid Manning is different than a handicap the team paid Manning. I don't want to see the wheelchair version.

You're suggesting getting rid of the best quarterback in the NFL in favor of being able to bring in players at other positions. Let's see our defense and offensive line get better, we still wouldn't have a quarterback. We'd have to get extremely lucky in that regard. Getting rid of Manning would realistically set our team back by at least three seasons. There's no conceivable way that we're in better position to win rings without Manning than we are with him, not for the next three years.

And again, your line of reasoning ignores the fact that we went to the Super Bowl a season ago. Even with a great quarterback, you don't do that without good players around him. This insistence that our team is not good enough to compete with the other good teams in the NFL is just beyond me.

But regardless, the idea that if we pay Manning the going rate for a top five quarterback in the NFL that we're not going to be able to pay anyone else is just not based in reality. We already pay other players, several of whom are top five at their respective positions.

[speedrik]

Just a guess, but Look for a 5 yr deal minimum, if not over lapse into retirement. Mannings replacement barring injury is still in high school. As far as what he gets, deserves all of it. Without Manning, the colts are probably gone, there is no LOS, no superbowl, no JW Marriot, no booming business downtown on Sunday home games, NCCA headquarters possibly in attachment with LOS and final four, etc. Manning and previously Reggie have brought millions more than their salaires in revenue to the city/state and rebuilt downtown.

[everybodysgotone]

You're suggesting getting rid of the best quarterback in the NFL in favor of being able to bring in players at other positions. Let's see our defense and offensive line get better, we still wouldn't have a quarterback. We'd have to get extremely lucky in that regard. Getting rid of Manning would realistically set our team back by at least three seasons. There's no conceivable way that we're in better position to win rings without Manning than we are with him, not for the next three years.

And again, your line of reasoning ignores the fact that we went to the Super Bowl a season ago. Even with a great quarterback, you don't do that without good players around him. This insistence that our team is not good enough to compete with the other good teams in the NFL is just beyond me.

But regardless, the idea that if we pay Manning the going rate for a top five quarterback in the NFL that we're not going to be able to pay anyone else is just not based in reality. We already pay other players, several of whom are top five at their respective positions.

Superman, tell ya what I just now read through your long post up here for the first time because I'm bored with all the same talk. Bottom line is I'm aware of the team's situation and I'm not gonna delve into details with you on this even though I could do a heckuva convincing job of it with the ample opportunity you provided here ^ ..... just like all our labor dispute talks & the results are in on that. Colt history is Colt history. End of file & I've been an avid fan since 1974. When other fans around the league and experts (whether they're worth their salt or not) want to know why we don't have more postseason success in the Manning era all we can offer on our end is one excuse after another. Divy it up any way you want and that's fine.....but it has usually boiled down to too much dependence/weighting on one man, in one form or another.

[doogansquest]

Same as the talk in the other thread. Same conclusion for both of us. Story over. Lookit....we crush everyone in the regular season and have a sub .500 postseason record in the Manning era where the best teams get the better of us. That is an historic fact. We have less success than other dominant teams in the postseason when the W's count most. I'm aware of all the stats both pro/con as well as the salaries for everyone else on the roster. I'm a huge Manning fan but not if the cost is 12-4 AFC South champs then one & done postseason. When our usual formula for a win comes together it looks great.....and when it doesn't we get to watch one man go out & try to compensate for an entire team. If we keep doing the same thing year in and year out under the same formula and never get another championship the organization will be rightly viewed as foolish. Bottom line is a well paid Manning is different than a handicap the team paid Manning. I don't want to see the wheelchair version.

So an unproven rookie is going to improve the Colts post-season record then?

Superman, tell ya what I just now read through your long post up here for the first time because I'm bored with all the same talk. Bottom line is I'm aware of the team's situation and I'm not gonna delve into details with you on this even though I could do a heckuva convincing job of it with the ample opportunity you provided here ^ ..... just like all our labor dispute talks & the results are in on that. Colt history is Colt history. End of file & I've been an avid fan since 1974. When other fans around the league and experts (whether they're worth their salt or not) want to know why we don't have more postseason success in the Manning era all we can offer on our end is one excuse after another.

You don't want to talk about it because your points have been downright awful. I've tried to see both sides, but I literally laugh when I read what you've posted.

Divy it up any way you want and that's fine.....but it has usually boiled down to too much dependence/weighting on one man, in one form or another.

No it hasn't.

Manning's playoff record is better in the last six years than Brady's (6-4 to 4-4). Does that mean the Patriots are wasting too much money on him? He is the highest paid right now, after all. What about the Chargers? They haven't even made it to a Super Bowl and they spend a truck load on Rivers. Big Ben lost his last Super Bowl, should they cut his $100M salary? How about Eli? His post-season record is far worse than Peyton's. Let them walk. They aren't winning it every year!!!

Your argument is baseless, and no one worth their salt supports what you are saying.

You pay to have the best at QB. There is no other option. If Manning walked, every team that doesn't already have one of the five best QB's would dump players like it's their job to pick him up. Top-tier QB's give you the best chance

to win, period. You can't provide one example that contradicts that in the modern era.

Sometimes other teams are better constructed, or have the right components fall in to place at the right time. In some cases, such as with the Steelers (every year except 05), teams don't have to play a difficult match up at any point during the post-season. Would the Steelers have any of their championship runs if they had to face the Patriots or Colts in 08 and 10? They are 1-14 against them combined, after all.

Only one team can win the Super Bowl each year. There are 32 teams trying to do it. About 4 teams are perennial contenders in this era, and the Colts are among them. Why? Peyton Manning. You don't let the best player on planet earth walk unless he's showing signs of serious decline; which he's not. He's still putting up 4,000+ and 30+ every year, not to mention he started 15 TD's to 2 INT's in the first four games last season before half of the team around him went down.

P.S. We have nothing of value to offer other teams in order to land a top 3 pick in the next draft. Besides, Luck isn't a guarantee. No more than Leaf, Wuerffel, Grossman, etc...

[21isSuperman]

I agree with Superman (and not just because of the username). You can`t blame Peyton for our post-season problems. Last year, the team had a ton of injuries and we still could have beat the Jets if it wasn`t for poor play by the special teams and Caldwell`s timeout. In the Super Bowl, special teams once again hurt us on that onside kick and the defense played very poorly. Peyton can`t do everything himself.

The notion of letting Peyton walk and stocking up for the future isn`t the best choice if you ask me. How do we know Andrew Luck is the next franchise QB and not Ryan Leaf 2.0? Look at how the 49ers did last year without a solid QB; they had a good defense led by Willis and a strong running game led by Gore and their strong O-line, but Alex Smith played poorly at the most important position. Put Peyton on that team and they win 13 games and are a legitimate contender for the Super Bowl.

Peyton is a top 5 QB in this league (number 1 if you ask many people) and he deserves to be paid like it. Paying him $20 mil a year is not a ridiculous contract for a player of Peyton's calibur. And it's possible that the logistics of the contract work out well for both sides; he could sign a back/front loaded deal so he isn't a big burden for many years or he could sign a contract with a number of performance based incentives instead of more guaranteed money. I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just saying it's possible. Well, possible in my opinion, but I'm certainly no NFL GM.

[Exodus]

I heard someone on NFL network say that Peyton is relizing he isnt getting any younger. I heard them say he wants to get a deal that gives him a ton of money up front, but leaves plenty left for other players. He is wanting to get Mathis and Reggie signed to long term deals. Peyton is wanting to keep a team together that can win him more SB's. I could totaly see that scenario playing out.

[21isSuperman]

I heard someone on NFL network say that Peyton is relizing he isnt getting any younger. I heard them say he wants to get a deal that gives him a ton of money up front, but leaves plenty left for other players. He is wanting to get Mathis and Reggie signed to long term deals. Peyton is wanting to keep a team together that can win him more SB's. I could totaly see that scenario playing out.

That would be pretty awesome. I'm not sure what the rules of the new CBA are in regards to this, but would he be able to get 60-70% of his guaranteed money in the first 2 years of his deal, then get 10-15% in the last three years? That would be a cap hit of (just estimating here) the $10 million range in the last 3 years of the deal.

[Superman]

Go look at the Eagles roster and payroll. They have a balanced roster, they have good players all over the field, and they (currently) have a $20 million quarterback. And they still have about $40 million in cap space. The difference between them and us is primarily the fact that they've picked ahead of us in the draft for the last six years. You put Peyton Manning on the Eagles, even at $25 million a year, and not only are they probably the best team in the NFL, they also still have cap space.

I don't see how you can blame the Colts payroll situation on Peyton Manning, and say that his high salary is the reason we don't spend money on free agents. First of all, we spend money on our own free agents (we've several times made our own players the highest paid at their position: Freeney, Sanders, Harrison, Clark). Secondly, there's no guarantee that just because Manning would make less that the team would spend that money in a way that would make us a better team (look at the Patriots before 2007; Brady took a cap friendly deal, and then watched them ship talent away year after year).

There are several reasons the Colts haven't won more Super Bowls, but I don't think you're having this discussion at all without one Peyton Manning. And that being the case, it makes no sense to me to suggest that getting rid of him would somehow lead to us being a better team and having more postseason success. I think it's a misguided idea, and it's terribly shortsighted.

[shecolt]

I agree with Superman (and not just because of the username). You can`t blame Peyton for our post-season problems. Last year, the team had a ton of injuries and we still could have beat the Jets if it wasn`t for poor play by the special teams and Caldwell`s timeout. In the Super Bowl, special teams once again hurt us on that onside kick and the defense played very poorly. Peyton can`t do everything himself.

I know this is somewhat OT; but I wanted to respond to your comment about that onside kick.

Tonight, TMZ was really ripping Hank Baskett. The worst part was the pics of him and that onside kick.

Ouch! That still makes me cry. :tears:

[Superman]

Superman, tell ya what I just now read through your long post up here for the first time because I'm bored with all the same talk. Bottom line is I'm aware of the team's situation and I'm not gonna delve into details with you on this even though I could do a heckuva convincing job of it with the ample opportunity you provided here ^ ..... just like all our labor dispute talks & the results are in on that. Colt history is Colt history. End of file & I've been an avid fan since 1974. When other fans around the league and experts (whether they're worth their salt or not) want to know why we don't have more postseason success in the Manning era all we can offer on our end is one excuse after another. Divy it up any way you want and that's fine.....but it has usually boiled down to too much dependence/weighting on one man, in one form or another.

What I surmise about you is that you're not overly emotional. You know what you're talking about, you think before you post, you're not all over the place, well-grounded. And so on. There are some posters who have suggested that maybe they'd prefer to see Manning leave and go win titles for another team, because he deserves to be remembered as the greatest of all time. I get the feeling that they are more Manning fans than Colts fans. I'm not knocking that; I'm just pointing out that I believe you when you say that you think the team would be better off not paying one player such a high amount of money. The black and white of it is that Manning's annual salary will probably be twice as high as the next highest paid player on the roster, a player who is probably top three at his own position. So it's certainly a valid question to ask, whether we're going to be paying this one guy too much money.

Where I think you're mistaken is in the idea that we haven't won more because we haven't had the cap space to put better players around Peyton Manning, necessarily due to his high salary. I think that's a red herring. Fact is that we have an elite quarterback, and like other elite quarterbacks, he's going to be paid a significant and perhaps unseemly salary. Unless you get lucky with a guy and he turns out to be a top level quarterback, you're going to have to break bread to be elite at the position. And because the NFL is a quarterback driven league, the difference between an elite quarterback and an average quarterback can very likely be the difference between the Colts and the Texans, or the Patriots and the Dolphins (and so on). We run into problems when our auxiliary players suffer injuries like Freeney and Mathis in 2007, or Freeney in 2009, or everyone in 2010. We get bounced in the playoffs when our offensive line doesn't play to its usual standard, like in 2005, or the entire 2008 season, including the Charger playoff game.

It's not that our team hasn't been good enough; we have been, especially since 2005. It's not that we can't afford to surround Manning with talent; we're the only team that has been to the playoffs every year since 2002. The problem has been substandard play. If you want to nitpick about salary cap situations, we can, but I'd point to Corey Simon's contract being a bigger problem than Peyton Manning's. I'd say that paying Bob Sanders top money to spend more time on IR than on the field has been a bigger issue. Marvin had a $12 million cap hit in 2008, when he spent most of the year on the bench. Raheem Brock was making $5 million a year to play out of position on an underwhelming defensive line. Reggie Wayne had a front-loaded deal. Booger McFarland was getting paid while he was on the PUP list. Really, over the years, it hasn't been Manning's cap number creating inflexibility. It's been an issue of us paying the wrong guys, sometimes due to no one's fault in particular.

But at the end of the day, whether we agree on all that or not (because we could parse details til we're blue in the face), what I think is undeniable is that we cannot cut Manning loose and still be a contender in the short term. Three years, bare minimum, if we do everything right, for us to be a contender again. Meanwhile, Manning is still one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, and is somewhere else leading another team into the playoffs, with whatever results. If winning is what you're judging the franchise by, we're in much better position to contend with Manning, even at an insanely high cap figure, than we are without him, even if we use that money to build a fantastic defense and have a superb running game. We'd be the 2009 Ravens and Jets, both of whom we beat on the way to the Super Bowl with our average defense and below average run game. That's best case scenario. Worst case, we're the Miami Dolphins or Denver Broncos, and we spend a decade trying to get back into contention because we lost our All-World quarterback. Only difference would be that we willingly let him walk, which I think would be a huge mistake.

[everybodysgotone]

What I surmise about you is that you're not overly emotional. You know what you're talking about, you think before you post, you're not all over the place, well-grounded. And so on. There are some posters who have suggested that maybe they'd prefer to see Manning leave and go win titles for another team, because he deserves to be remembered as the greatest of all time. I get the feeling that they are more Manning fans than Colts fans. I'm not knocking that; I'm just pointing out that I believe you when you say that you think the team would be better off not paying one player such a high amount of money. The black and white of it is that Manning's annual salary will probably be twice as high as the next highest paid player on the roster, a player who is probably top three at his own position. So it's certainly a valid question to ask, whether we're going to be paying this one guy too much money.

Where I think you're mistaken is in the idea that we haven't won more because we haven't had the cap space to put better players around Peyton Manning, necessarily due to his high salary. I think that's a red herring. Fact is that we have an elite quarterback, and like other elite quarterbacks, he's going to be paid a significant and perhaps unseemly salary. Unless you get lucky with a guy and he turns out to be a top level quarterback, you're going to have to break bread to be elite at the position. And because the NFL is a quarterback driven league, the difference between an elite quarterback and an average quarterback can very likely be the difference between the Colts and the Texans, or the Patriots and the Dolphins (and so on). We run into problems when our auxiliary players suffer injuries like Freeney and Mathis in 2007, or Freeney in 2009, or everyone in 2010. We get bounced in the playoffs when our offensive line doesn't play to its usual standard, like in 2005, or the entire 2008 season, including the Charger playoff game.

It's not that our team hasn't been good enough; we have been, especially since 2005. It's not that we can't afford to surround Manning with talent; we're the only team that has been to the playoffs every year since 2002. The problem has been substandard play. If you want to nitpick about salary cap situations, we can, but I'd point to Corey Simon's contract being a bigger problem than Peyton Manning's. I'd say that paying Bob Sanders top money to spend more time on IR than on the field has been a bigger issue. Marvin had a $12 million cap hit in 2008, when he spent most of the year on the bench. Raheem Brock was making $5 million a year to play out of position on an underwhelming defensive line. Reggie Wayne had a front-loaded deal. Booger McFarland was getting paid while he was on the PUP list. Really, over the years, it hasn't been Manning's cap number creating inflexibility. It's been an issue of us paying the wrong guys, sometimes due to no one's fault in particular.

But at the end of the day, whether we agree on all that or not (because we could parse details til we're blue in the face), what I think is undeniable is that we cannot cut Manning loose and still be a contender in the short term. Three years, bare minimum, if we do everything right, for us to be a contender again. Meanwhile, Manning is still one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, and is somewhere else leading another team into the playoffs, with whatever results. If winning is what you're judging the franchise by, we're in much better position to contend with Manning, even at an insanely high cap figure, than we are without him, even if we use that money to build a fantastic defense and have a superb running game. We'd be the 2009 Ravens and Jets, both of whom we beat on the way to the Super Bowl with our average defense and below average run game. That's best case scenario. Worst case, we're the Miami Dolphins or Denver Broncos, and we spend a decade trying to get back into contention because we lost our All-World quarterback. Only difference would be that we willingly let him walk, which I think would be a huge mistake.

Lost my response will be back tonight...

[Matt105]

This topic is depressing me, lol. Making me think of a time when there will be no Peyton.

Peyton Manning is a once in a lifetime QB and at the end of his career he will be considered the greatest QB of all time. I'd like for all of his career to be played in Indy. Even a healthy current Colts team has great potential to win the Super Bowl. If we can't sign FAs I will be upset, but that in no way takes us out of contention.

[21isSuperman]

I know this is somewhat OT; but I wanted to respond to your comment about that onside kick.

Tonight, TMZ was really ripping Hank Baskett. The worst part was the pics of him and that onside kick.

Ouch! That still makes me cry. :tears:

That must have been hard to watch...the pictures part, not the ripping Baskett part.

[NM_Colts]

I guess I don't get my panties in a twist as soon as others do. :FBtongue: It will get done.

lol, mine are in a dreadful twist. The last time his contract was up, 5 players were cut with 5 more hanging by a thread. I'll be ticked if we lose anyone over this. I see Condon as the one dragging his heels.

Come on Peyton, override the agent and let's get it done.

[icf]

Manning needs to decide if wins / public image / or $$$ are most important.

He's got more money then he, his wife or new born kids will ever spend.

He has a good set - up in Indy and really needs to work on winning another SB to cement his legacy as one (if not the) greatest QB ever.

He's the 'king' in Indy and really one of the most popular and well marketed players in all of pro sports.

LeBron suffered a ton of backlash for how he handled his "Decision" to go to Miami. His image may never recover to the point it was before leaving Cleveland.

While I dont expect Manning to have a prime time special to announce where he's headed --- if he were to become a FA - his image may well suffer if he holds out for the most $$ or causes the Colts "TEAM" to suffer.

I realize I'll never be in his position, but really...why not take $15M a year for 4 / 5 years and let the team use that remaining money to bring in a better O-line, another stud receiver or help build you a great defense.

20 years from now, nobody really is going to remember what he got paid --- just what his teams performance was over the these 5 years and if he made it to and / or won any Super Bowls.

[Mak Lao]

Peyton will still be great for 4 more years. We will be o.k. if he's the highest paid player on the team. Everything depends on how well our young drafted players do to determine our success. THIS IS THE COLTS/IRSAY'S WAY.

[Bbswatching]

I am just wondering. Why is it that Manning has to get the biggest contract ever? I feel that if he truly wanted a wining team he would take like 5 or 6 mill a year. He has already had his big payday. I would think he would be wanting to win a couple more super bowls. So take less so we can sign players to help us win!!!!!!!

[Susie Q]

I am just wondering. Why is it that Manning has to get the biggest contract ever? I feel that if he truly wanted a wining team he would take like 5 or 6 mill a year. He has already had his big payday. I would think he would be wanting to win a couple more super bowls. So take less so we can sign players to help us win!!!!!!!

In answer to your question about 5 or 6 million it's called UNION............ :FBrolleyes: Also it's Irsay twitting that he was going to make him the highest paid player in the NFL.

[Matt105]

In answer to your question about 5 or 6 million it's called UNION............ :FBrolleyes: Also it's Irsay twitting that he was going to make him the highest paid player in the NFL.

I was coming here to say this. It's annoying, but true. Peyton's gotta look out for all the other players, so he can't take a major cut, because stock of other players would plummet.

[manningstheman]

About Peyton:

The reason he gets all the money he can is so he can have a say on who stays and who goes. It has done it a ton over the years. He will restructure his deal anytime he wants someone important to stay.Its usually been his main recievers, but of course its going to be. I even believe he tried to work something to keep Egde here years ago but it didnt work out.

[John Dee]

I agree with the OP. I just don't see the need for Manning to prove a point and "demand" what he should get by the union. He has broke the bank in all 3 of his previous contracts. I would think Peyton would like a little more help to get him over the hump to 2+ Super Bowl wins. It won't happen with he and Freeney sucking up nearly a third of the entire cap.

Oh well, looks like Peyton at 35 will be asked to carry Indy yet again.

Go

[GoColts00]

His last contract was 99.2M that included a 34.5M signing bonus which effectively made his portion of cap space 8.3M

I would think that 122M (making him the highest-paid player) with 43M being a singing bonus would leave 79M over 5yrs. that would be 15.8M per year and his portion of cap space would be around 9.5M

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1748909

[BOTT]

chris morntenson pointed out that peyton has always made his contract cap friendly for the colts. it's not his fault polian decided to spend the money on an often injured undersized safety, an undersized average middle linebacker, and a mediocre cb.

[wordofmouth]

Peyton is starting to tick me off a bit. I really hope that I am wrong but Brady ( last years MVP, 3 rings etc.) just signs a contract for 18 Mil per season and keeps playing. Peyton has had the team on hold now for way too long. Now the talk is of Manning getting upwards of 23 MIll. Come on! Everyone gets all up in arms about us not signing this free agent of that free agent, this is why.

Believe me, I * myself off writing this has much as I am probably pissing off people who are reading this, but GOAT or not, we can only afford to pay him so much, and wait so long to know what our real budget is.

[wordofmouth]

Peyton is starting to tick me off a bit. I really hope that I am wrong but Brady ( last years MVP, 3 rings etc.) just signs a contract for 18 Mil per season and keeps playing. Peyton has had the team on hold now for way too long. Now the talk is of Manning getting upwards of 23 MIll. Come on! Everyone gets all up in arms about us not signing this free agent of that free agent, this is why.

Believe me, I * myself off writing this has much as I am probably pissing off people who are reading this, but GOAT or not, we can only afford to pay him so much, and wait so long to know what our real budget is.

[Bbswatching]

I understand he has to look for the other payers as far as the union goes. But he could still take like even 9 or 10 a year that would still leave like 10 mill for other players. I'm sorry but at what point does he quit being selfish and understand that we need more than just #18!!!!!!!!!!!!

[everybodysgotone]

What I surmise about you is that you're not overly emotional. You know what you're talking about, you think before you post, you're not all over the place, well-grounded. And so on. There are some posters who have suggested that maybe they'd prefer to see Manning leave and go win titles for another team, because he deserves to be remembered as the greatest of all time. I get the feeling that they are more Manning fans than Colts fans. I'm not knocking that; I'm just pointing out that I believe you when you say that you think the team would be better off not paying one player such a high amount of money. The black and white of it is that Manning's annual salary will probably be twice as high as the next highest paid player on the roster, a player who is probably top three at his own position. So it's certainly a valid question to ask, whether we're going to be paying this one guy too much money.

Where I think you're mistaken is in the idea that we haven't won more because we haven't had the cap space to put better players around Peyton Manning, necessarily due to his high salary. I think that's a red herring. Fact is that we have an elite quarterback, and like other elite quarterbacks, he's going to be paid a significant and perhaps unseemly salary. Unless you get lucky with a guy and he turns out to be a top level quarterback, you're going to have to break bread to be elite at the position. And because the NFL is a quarterback driven league, the difference between an elite quarterback and an average quarterback can very likely be the difference between the Colts and the Texans, or the Patriots and the Dolphins (and so on). We run into problems when our auxiliary players suffer injuries like Freeney and Mathis in 2007, or Freeney in 2009, or everyone in 2010. We get bounced in the playoffs when our offensive line doesn't play to its usual standard, like in 2005, or the entire 2008 season, including the Charger playoff game.

It's not that our team hasn't been good enough; we have been, especially since 2005. It's not that we can't afford to surround Manning with talent; we're the only team that has been to the playoffs every year since 2002. The problem has been substandard play. If you want to nitpick about salary cap situations, we can, but I'd point to Corey Simon's contract being a bigger problem than Peyton Manning's. I'd say that paying Bob Sanders top money to spend more time on IR than on the field has been a bigger issue. Marvin had a $12 million cap hit in 2008, when he spent most of the year on the bench. Raheem Brock was making $5 million a year to play out of position on an underwhelming defensive line. Reggie Wayne had a front-loaded deal. Booger McFarland was getting paid while he was on the PUP list. Really, over the years, it hasn't been Manning's cap number creating inflexibility. It's been an issue of us paying the wrong guys, sometimes due to no one's fault in particular.

But at the end of the day, whether we agree on all that or not (because we could parse details til we're blue in the face), what I think is undeniable is that we cannot cut Manning loose and still be a contender in the short term. Three years, bare minimum, if we do everything right, for us to be a contender again. Meanwhile, Manning is still one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, and is somewhere else leading another team into the playoffs, with whatever results. If winning is what you're judging the franchise by, we're in much better position to contend with Manning, even at an insanely high cap figure, than we are without him, even if we use that money to build a fantastic defense and have a superb running game. We'd be the 2009 Ravens and Jets, both of whom we beat on the way to the Super Bowl with our average defense and below average run game. That's best case scenario. Worst case, we're the Miami Dolphins or Denver Broncos, and we spend a decade trying to get back into contention because we lost our All-World quarterback. Only difference would be that we willingly let him walk, which I think would be a huge mistake.

The Colts are going to continue to arrange the team around Manning. I know it, you know, everyone knows it. Why? Because we have to, more or less. The Colts have been doing this for years & years. That's what has put the team in this situation (rely too heavily upon Manning), which hopefully will end in a last hurrah. Times are different now for a couple of reasons though. Reality is the cap is down 9M and Peyton Manning isn't getting any younger. Even the free spending Jim Irsay can see paying Manning 25M per via a huge raise isn't going to work...and that's quite a statement.....so I don't understand why it's so hard for some fans to realize the situation except for wanting some illusion or clinging to the past.

I know team history and what's happened with salaries over the years, etc. I don't need a lesson. I don't care about alternate hypothesis or possible alternate realities if _____ (fill in the blank player) panned out/stayed healthy/etc., etc. or ______ (fill in the blank) game situation had been handled/approached differently. I view them all as excuses for those points in time which the team was brought to by paths on various decision trees. Each of them with measurable cause/effect. Afterall, every team is going to have a player go down now and then & still have to pay him. That's football. What I do care about is the here-and-now and what might be able to be done to correct/improve things.

To say Manning's salary hasn't been a very large contributory and/or limiting factor in what the team has been able to do with regard to signing other players, whether or not they've been our own product or the rare FA, is ridiculous. It's made things challenging in the past and will become even more challenging in this cap/salary corrected environment during which Manning will need increasingly more help....all while he gets what is projected to be a huge raise. And a large share of folks here seem to be fine with that. Like I said....we live and die by Manning too much. Nobody else in the league is in this position to the degree the Colts are. Nobody. And the situation is going to be exacerbated by the circumstances of the times. Like I said, if we continue with the same formula and don't win any more titles the team will rightfully be viewed by many as foolish. The current Colt formula for success has proven to be less than 50/50 pertaining to postseason. I don't heavily weight our overall success in the win column during the regular season (half of the games over the years against a weak AFC South). Beating that competition is just what gets us to the postseason. How we qualify in our world. When we're there, the best teams have gotten the better of us....and once again that is an historic fact. So it's up to all of us to view the odds doing things the way we do as acceptable or not. We're all in the same boat as fans.

You're right about one thing - the Colts best shot to win short term is with Manning. Of course. Why? Because once again the team has been arranged around him and we have no alternative. What? Are we gonna go to Curtis Painter? As to my far-fetched Andrew Luck scenario, I couldn't care less what anyone says.....I put it out there to make a point. I realize the odds would be slim to none. So, is it better to pay Manning his tag for one year at 23M or even for the next two years....then let him go seek the other 100M elsewhere & use all of that money to restructure the team? Or...... put most of our eggs in the aging Manning basket for the next five years all the while during changing times? Time will tell. Always does.

All I'm suggesting is that Manning's salary be reasonable so the team can be freed up to do more than we have in the past. New CBA rules require teams to spend most of the cap so it's not like Irsay could cheap-out. Not that he would. If Manning's salary isn't reasonable and straps us more than ever I'm not so sure letting him walk would be a bad thing over the longer haul. Spend the tag money on him in 2011 & possibly 2012 and start finding another formula for wins sooner than later instead of riding the horse into the ground to the tune of the same postseason success rate (unless I'm shown otherwise). We still have other good players on the team & could supplement that with all of the would-be Manning money. Everyone can be replaced.....and that includes Manning, sooner or later.