Irsay says he is rooting for Peyton

[dudeski]

You demoted me, I was a major in the army ! That would make me major butt hurt !

doesnt have the same ring to it

[The Old Crow]

doesnt have the same ring to it

 

Maybe so.

[AntonMcG]

Where did you get your MBA?[/

That college on the back of a pack of matches! Lol

 

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[The Old Crow]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

 

Did you go to CCC ? Community College of Capologists ?

[AntonMcG]

Did you go to CCC ? Community College of Capologists ?

 

 

Nope, too smart.

[The Old Crow]

Nope, too smart.

Awesome.

[Superman]

you know what I've always wondered about the last statement? Who wants cake if you don't get to eat it? That has nothing to do with point you are making but that phrase has lawyer been odd to me for that reason.

 

Once you eat it, you don't have it anymore.

[FanFromtheWasteland]

Well let’s see, it took Peyton 6 years to win his first playoff game under the same coach and “fantastic” GM. Luck did it in 2 years under his second head coach, new GM, new defense and second offense. Pressure point 1 handled quite dominantly. It took Peyton 7 years to win his first Super Bowl. Luck, Grigson and Irsay should have at least that much time to do the same before you haters want to compare what Indy did this year with a run of the mill team to what Peyton did with a vastly more talented team, before you want to claim the pressure is on.

 

Hate all you want and continue to live in your bitter world. I wish you well.  The rest of us will gladly accept the rising talent and future success of the Indianapolis Colts.

[Superman]

What cap issue the Colts spent $16M on the quarterback in 2012 anyway. Manning kept on roster would have been $17M.

The issue was keeping both. Which would have been asinine to even think of.

If you truly want to say what was best, dollar wise, for the Colts it would have kept Manning, trade the pick, and release Freeney. If I remember correctly that would have given the Colts the most money of any situation. I think the number was an extra $8M and the Browns entire draft class.

There was no cap issue. The cap issue is made up by Irsay.

And he continues to say it, and he is just downright lying, a d the kicker is people believe him.

I'm not second guessing him, or saying it was wrong. However I would rather him just say, I wanted to move on, and that is the reason we did what we did. Instead of his story about no money, and the inability to surround Peyton with a team. Because it is a blatant lie.

 

You didn't include the uncertainty about Manning's neck. Even he was unsure whether he would play again, and if he'd be able to do so at a high level. But let's just ignore that, right?

 

Had the Colts kept Manning, they would have paid him a $28m option bonus, fully guaranteed. If he couldn't, play, oh well, you're locked in for more than $18m/year, and the cap penalty for releasing him after that bonus was paid would have gone to nearly $40m. But yeah, there was no cap issue. You say they spent $16m on the QB in 2012 anyways, and I suppose you're talking about the $10.4m cap penalty for Manning plus Luck's cap hit. (Or maybe you're talking about the actual cash.) Either way, to keep Manning, it would have been a $28m bonus + Manning's $7.4m base salary = $35.4m cash outlay for Manning alone in 2012. Plus the cost of capable backup QBs. So let's not act like the money was the same. It wasn't, either in terms of cash, future flexibility or cap ramifications. 

 

The Colts had a broken roster, plain and simple, and it showed in the 2-14 record in 2011. We had no real QBs under contract, outside of Manning. Reggie Wayne and Robert Mathis were free agents, and resigning them cost $25m in total Year 1 cash. 

 

For you to state so adamantly that there was no cap issue is shocking, because it's simply not true. The Colts had multiple cap issues, even without the cap penalty from releasing Manning, and ignoring them is senseless at this point. 

 

Whether the team could have navigated those cap issues is another story entirely. Sure, we could have released Freeney (which we should have done anyways), and we could have traded the #1 pick for the Browns entire draft class, or however the story goes. We still needed to rebuild the rest of the roster, and would have been building around a 36 year old QB with an uncertain neck and arm. The $35m for Manning + $25m to keep Wayne and Mathis + $18m to sign the Browns first rounders = $78m total cash for 5 players. Just to fill out the roster, you'd have easily been at $150m in cash for one year. Not to mention the cap carryovers and year-to-year total cap hits. That's not just not ideal, it's downright reckless. 

 

What's irritating is how people look at the Broncos' success and say "see, the Colts could have done that." It's not that simple. They are using players they've developed over several years, not first and second year players, which is what the Colts would have been forced to rely on had they kept Manning and traded the #1 pick. Manning is awesome, and there's no doubt in my mind that the team could have performed, but not to the degree the Broncos are performing at over the last two years. 

 

What this is really all about is not Irsay saying the cap situation and Manning's neck forced his hand. This is about a group of people who admittedly care more about Manning finishing his career as a Colt than they do about whether Manning or the Colts win championships. You can call Irsay a liar, and call the people who understand his viewpoint gullible simps, but it really sounds like you either don't have a good grasp of what happened, or don't care because it didn't happen the way you wanted it to.

[Jason_]

You didn't include the uncertainty about Manning's neck. Even he was unsure whether he would play again, and if he'd be able to do so at a high level. But let's just ignore that, right?

 

Had the Colts kept Manning, they would have paid him a $28m option bonus, fully guaranteed. If he couldn't, play, oh well, you're locked in for more than $18m/year, and the cap penalty for releasing him after that bonus was paid would have gone to nearly $40m

 

I may be remembering wrong, but didn't Manning say he could and would renegotiate the contract if Irsay wanted him to stay?  I would swear that he did and then after Polian confirmed that the contract  could have been renegotiated if Irsay truly wanted to keep Manning. 

 

I'm not saying that would have been the right or wrong course of action, I just know a lot of people put it squarely on the contract.  The way I remember it is that Irsay said that in order for Manning to stay, the contract would have to be renegotiated.  Following that, Manning said in an interview that he completely understood and was more than willing to restructure the contract due to the uncertainty of whether he'd be able to play again and at a high level.  It was after that Irsay came out and said that he wanted an open QB competition between Manning and Luck and that was the breaking point.

 

Again, I'm simply looking for clarification on whether or not I'm remembering events correctly.

[FanFromtheWasteland]

You didn't include the uncertainty about Manning's neck. Even he was unsure whether he would play again, and if he'd be able to do so at a high level. But let's just ignore that, right?

 

Had the Colts kept Manning, they would have paid him a $28m option bonus, fully guaranteed. If he couldn't, play, oh well, you're locked in for more than $18m/year, and the cap penalty for releasing him after that bonus was paid would have gone to nearly $40m. But yeah, there was no cap issue. You say they spent $16m on the QB in 2012 anyways, and I suppose you're talking about the $10.4m cap penalty for Manning plus Luck's cap hit. (Or maybe you're talking about the actual cash.) Either way, to keep Manning, it would have been a $28m bonus + Manning's $7.4m base salary = $35.4m cash outlay for Manning alone in 2012. Plus the cost of capable backup QBs. So let's not act like the money was the same. It wasn't, either in terms of cash, future flexibility or cap ramifications. 

 

The Colts had a broken roster, plain and simple, and it showed in the 2-14 record in 2011. We had no real QBs under contract, outside of Manning. Reggie Wayne and Robert Mathis were free agents, and resigning them cost $25m in total Year 1 cash. 

 

For you to state so adamantly that there was no cap issue is shocking, because it's simply not true. The Colts had multiple cap issues, even without the cap penalty from releasing Manning, and ignoring them is senseless at this point. 

 

Whether the team could have navigated those cap issues is another story entirely. Sure, we could have released Freeney (which we should have done anyways), and we could have traded the #1 pick for the Browns entire draft class, or however the story goes. We still needed to rebuild the rest of the roster, and would have been building around a 36 year old QB with an uncertain neck and arm. The $35m for Manning + $25m to keep Wayne and Mathis + $18m to sign the Browns first rounders = $78m total cash for 5 players. Just to fill out the roster, you'd have easily been at $150m in cash for one year. Not to mention the cap carryovers and year-to-year total cap hits. That's not just not ideal, it's downright reckless. 

 

What's irritating is how people look at the Broncos' success and say "see, the Colts could have done that." It's not that simple. They are using players they've developed over several years, not first and second year players, which is what the Colts would have been forced to rely on had they kept Manning and traded the #1 pick. Manning is awesome, and there's no doubt in my mind that the team could have performed, but not to the degree the Broncos are performing at over the last two years. 

 

What this is really all about is not Irsay saying the cap situation and Manning's neck forced his hand. This is about a group of people who admittedly care more about Manning finishing his career as a Colt than they do about whether Manning or the Colts win championships. You can call Irsay a liar, and call the people who understand his viewpoint gullible simps, but it really sounds like you either don't have a good grasp of what happened, or don't care because it didn't happen the way you wanted it to.

 

Absolutely yeah rah sis boom bah!!!!! Nail on head point blank period!!!

[Superman]

I may be remembering wrong, but didn't Manning say he could and would renegotiate the contract if Irsay wanted him to stay?  I would swear that he did and then after Polian confirmed that the contract  could have been renegotiated if Irsay truly wanted to keep Manning. 

 

I'm not saying that would have been the right or wrong course of action, I just know a lot of people put it squarely on the contract.  The way I remember it is that Irsay said that in order for Manning to stay, the contract would have to be renegotiated.  Following that, Manning said in an interview that he completely understood and was more than willing to restructure the contract due to the uncertainty of whether he'd be able to play again and at a high level.  It was after that Irsay came out and said that he wanted an open QB competition between Manning and Luck and that was the breaking point.

 

Again, I'm simply looking for clarification on whether or not I'm remembering events correctly.

 

This is where Irsay and Polian really screwed the pooch. The big issue was the $28m option bonus.

 

The option bonus could be renegotiated, but not once the regular season ended. There's an arcane rule in the CBA that prevents renegotiating bonuses that are to be paid in the latter part of the league year. Manning's option bonus was to be paid in the 2011 league year, and as such, could not be renegotiated. Everything else about the contract was fair game, but both sides were tied to the option bonus. Had the date of that bonus been in the 2012 league year, it would have been a completely different story. (There was some talk about filing an appeal, and the NFLPA and the NFL reaching an agreement in this case, but that's way off to the side. And it does nothing to make Manning's neck and arm better.)

 

What they should have done is kept him on the franchise tag. Would have paid him $23m instead of $26m, and then could have approached a new, long-term deal, with all the appropriate information. If he couldn't play, there would have been no future cap ramifications, and if he could play, they could have structured a fair deal for both sides, much like the Broncos did.

 

TL;DR, the structure of the contract and the date of the bonus made it practically impossible to have meaningful renegotiations.

[Fx Stryker]

You didn't include the uncertainty about Manning's neck. Even he was unsure whether he would play again, and if he'd be able to do so at a high level. But let's just ignore that, right?

 

Had the Colts kept Manning, they would have paid him a $28m option bonus, fully guaranteed. If he couldn't, play, oh well, you're locked in for more than $18m/year, and the cap penalty for releasing him after that bonus was paid would have gone to nearly $40m. But yeah, there was no cap issue. You say they spent $16m on the QB in 2012 anyways, and I suppose you're talking about the $10.4m cap penalty for Manning plus Luck's cap hit. (Or maybe you're talking about the actual cash.) Either way, to keep Manning, it would have been a $28m bonus + Manning's $7.4m base salary = $35.4m cash outlay for Manning alone in 2012. Plus the cost of capable backup QBs. So let's not act like the money was the same. It wasn't, either in terms of cash, future flexibility or cap ramifications. 

 

The Colts had a broken roster, plain and simple, and it showed in the 2-14 record in 2011. We had no real QBs under contract, outside of Manning. Reggie Wayne and Robert Mathis were free agents, and resigning them cost $25m in total Year 1 cash. 

 

For you to state so adamantly that there was no cap issue is shocking, because it's simply not true. The Colts had multiple cap issues, even without the cap penalty from releasing Manning, and ignoring them is senseless at this point. 

 

Whether the team could have navigated those cap issues is another story entirely. Sure, we could have released Freeney (which we should have done anyways), and we could have traded the #1 pick for the Browns entire draft class, or however the story goes. We still needed to rebuild the rest of the roster, and would have been building around a 36 year old QB with an uncertain neck and arm. The $35m for Manning + $25m to keep Wayne and Mathis + $18m to sign the Browns first rounders = $78m total cash for 5 players. Just to fill out the roster, you'd have easily been at $150m in cash for one year. Not to mention the cap carryovers and year-to-year total cap hits. That's not just not ideal, it's downright reckless. 

 

What's irritating is how people look at the Broncos' success and say "see, the Colts could have done that." It's not that simple. They are using players they've developed over several years, not first and second year players, which is what the Colts would have been forced to rely on had they kept Manning and traded the #1 pick. Manning is awesome, and there's no doubt in my mind that the team could have performed, but not to the degree the Broncos are performing at over the last two years. 

 

What this is really all about is not Irsay saying the cap situation and Manning's neck forced his hand. This is about a group of people who admittedly care more about Manning finishing his career as a Colt than they do about whether Manning or the Colts win championships. You can call Irsay a liar, and call the people who understand his viewpoint gullible simps, but it really sounds like you either don't have a good grasp of what happened, or don't care because it didn't happen the way you wanted it to.

 

I just want to point out I have no anger towards the move, and accept it. I've said it many times they did what they felt they had to. The part I DO have a problem with is Irsay continues try and make himself look good by telling stories about why it happened instead of just accepting the real reason. 

 

We're not discussing the part about Peyton health because by his words the move was made because we didn't have the cap to hold Peyton, and to form a competitive team. Again the part about real cash is a moot point because according to Irsay it was never about the money. So I am just going to ignore the first couple parts for the sake of how Irsay addresses this. But if you want to talk real cash? The Colts have endless "real" cash. What was he tweeting out this offseason? Something along the lines of spending over $100M to free agents. Don't talk real cash on players. He has it, and he is willing to spend it.

 

Let's be honest if he would say I didn't think Peyton could play, and I went with the young guy I know who could there is no argument here. But he doesn't, and there is proof his "explanation" is made up. But it is the safest thing for him to say, and without him being wrong. Because if he did say I didn't think Peyton could play, well he is wrong because Peyton has proved he could play. No one wants to be wrong, and especially sports owners. It's why Jerry Jones continues to do what he does even though everyone can see it is wrong, but it would also mean he was wrong. So he forces these situation to make his way work so he can say, "look I was right all along." It's why Bob Irsay refused to listen to anyone around him, and it's why Tom Ricketts does what he does. They want to be right no matter what.

 

Now to the point of the "cap issue"

 

In 2012 Colts were very tight in the cap situation. Spending $120M of the $120.6M allowed. Now if you talk cap wise for forming a team the Colts could have made the same exact moves with Peyton Manning and cutting Dwight Freeney instead.

 

The 2012 Colts with Peyton and no Freeney or Luck saves the team over $10M in cap space. Only spending $70M on salaries opposed to what we really spent at $76M. And the other saver is the dead money. The hypo-Colts would have only spent $19.5M opposed to the real figure of $25M in dead cap.

 

The total cap for the hypo-Colts is $108M opposed to our real figure $120M. Guess what entering the 2012 training camp the Colts had $14.6M in cap space, and if I remember correctly most was spent on our draft picks. This is the figure we had as of July 1, 2012. But take that figure, and add the $11.5M in extra money the hypo-Colts would have had they would have had the MOST cap space entering the season with $26.1M. That is $1M more than any other team in the NFL. A team that already has Reggie, Peyton and Robert has $26.1M to spend is in pretty good shape if you ask me. Remember when Irsay said that wouldn't be possible? On top of that the Colts could have potentially had 20 draft picks in the 2012 draft. Which included 2 1st rounds, 2 2nd rounds, 3 3rd rounds, 2 4th rounds, 3 5th rounds, 3 6th rounds, and 5 7th rounds. Now the Browns made draft day trades so it could have been more. But would we have the money to sign them all? All 20 draft picks would have cost $13M of the $26.1M. So we could have signed an extra free agent or two on top of every move in 2012.

 

But if you really want to get stupid. The circumstance of a roster holding Peyton Manning and Andrew luck was a possibility, and without killing the team cap wise. Imagine that....

 

There was cap there to form a competitive team. You can't argue with the numbers because numbers never lie. The Broncos the past two seasons had $27M to spend in cap. We possible could have had that alone in the 2012 offseason. Add that to the money we had in 2013 off-season we had $72M in cap, but you can't forget to add in the extra $12M Peyton would have cost in cap. ;) So in two offseasons the Colts would have had $60M in cap space. That is over TWICE the figure the Broncos had with $11M to spend in 2012 and $19.5M to spend in 2013. I'm not saying they would be in the Super Bowl. Just stating there was the possibility of forming a team.

 

Now you know would would completely derail this discussion? If Irsay just stopped telling his stories, stopped being a politician, and just would say "we didn't trust Peyton would come back, and we moved on for the future" instead of saying "we didn't have the cap for Peyton or to field a team around him."

 

Again this argument is AGAINST the move. I get it, it "had" to be done. It's a move for the future. It's all understandable and accepted. It doesn't prevent me from rooting for the team, and I highly doubt anything ever will. Just stop making up the story Jim. And if anyone wants to look down at me because I don't pray to and kiss Irsay's feet I could honestly care less. There are many instances fans dislike their ownership, and it's within every sport. This team was here long before him, and will be long after. The way I see it Chandler Harnish, Bradley Sowell, Tupe Peko, Idrees Bashir, Brock Huard, Sean Dawkins, Cary Blanchard and every other player represents what I root for more than Irsay. I root for them and the colors not ownership.

[Superman]

 

I just want to point out I have no anger towards the move, and accept it. I've said it many times they did what they felt they had to. The part I DO have a problem with is Irsay continues try and make himself look good by telling stories about why it happened instead of just accepting the real reason. 

 

We're not discussing the part about Peyton health because by his words the move was made because we didn't have the cap to hold Peyton, and to form a competitive team. Again the part about real cash is a moot point because according to Irsay it was never about the money. So I am just going to ignore the first couple parts for the sake of how Irsay addresses this. But if you want to talk real cash? The Colts have endless "real" cash. What was he tweeting out this offseason? Something along the lines of spending over $100M to free agents. Don't talk real cash on players. He has it, and he is willing to spend it.

 

Let's be honest if he would say I didn't think Peyton could play, and I went with the young guy I know who could there is no argument here. But he doesn't, and there is proof his "explanation" is made up. But it is the safest thing for him to say, and without him being wrong. Because if he did say I didn't think Peyton could play, well he is wrong because Peyton has proved he could play. No one wants to be wrong, and especially sports owners. It's why Jerry Jones continues to do what he does even though everyone can see it is wrong, but it would also mean he was wrong. So he forces these situation to make his way work so he can say, "look I was right all along." It's why Bob Irsay refused to listen to anyone around him, and it's why Tom Ricketts does what he does. They want to be right no matter what.

 

Now to the point of the "cap issue"

 

In 2012 Colts were very tight in the cap situation. Spending $120M of the $120.6M allowed. Now if you talk cap wise for forming a team the Colts could have made the same exact moves with Peyton Manning and cutting Dwight Freeney instead.

 

The 2012 Colts with Peyton and no Freeney or Luck saves the team over $10M in cap space. Only spending $70M on salaries opposed to what we really spent at $76M. And the other saver is the dead money. The hypo-Colts would have only spent $19.5M opposed to the real figure of $25M in dead cap.

 

The total cap for the hypo-Colts is $108M opposed to our real figure $120M. Guess what entering the 2012 training camp the Colts had $14.6M in cap space, and if I remember correctly most was spent on our draft picks. This is the figure we had as of July 1, 2012. But take that figure, and add the $11.5M in extra money the hypo-Colts would have had they would have had the MOST cap space entering the season with $26.1M. That is $1M more than any other team in the NFL. A team that already has Reggie, Peyton and Robert has $26.1M to spend is in pretty good shape if you ask me. Remember when Irsay said that wouldn't be possible? On top of that the Colts could have potentially had 20 draft picks in the 2012 draft. Which included 2 1st rounds, 2 2nd rounds, 3 3rd rounds, 2 4th rounds, 3 5th rounds, 3 6th rounds, and 5 7th rounds. Now the Browns made draft day trades so it could have been more. But would we have the money to sign them all? All 20 draft picks would have cost $13M of the $26.1M. So we could have signed an extra free agent or two on top of every move in 2012.

 

But if you really want to get stupid. The circumstance of a roster holding Peyton Manning and Andrew luck was a possibility, and without killing the team cap wise. Imagine that....

 

There was cap there to form a competitive team. You can't argue with the numbers because numbers never lie. The Broncos the past two seasons had $27M to spend in cap. We possible could have had that alone in the 2012 offseason. Add that to the money we had in 2013 off-season we had $72M in cap, but you can't forget to add in the extra $12M Peyton would have cost in cap. ;) So in two offseasons the Colts would have had $60M in cap space. That is over TWICE the figure the Broncos had with $11M to spend in 2012 and $19.5M to spend in 2013. I'm not saying they would be in the Super Bowl. Just stating there was the possibility of forming a team.

 

Now you know would would completely derail this discussion? If Irsay just stopped telling his stories, stopped being a politician, and just would say "we didn't trust Peyton would come back, and we moved on for the future" instead of saying "we didn't have the cap for Peyton or to field a team around him."

 

Again this argument is AGAINST the move. I get it, it "had" to be done. It's a move for the future. It's all understandable and accepted. It doesn't prevent me from rooting for the team, and I highly doubt anything ever will. Just stop making up the story Jim. And if anyone wants to look down at me because I don't pray to and kiss Irsay's feet I could honestly care less. There are many instances fans dislike their ownership, and it's within every sport. This team was here long before him, and will be long after. The way I see it Chandler Harnish, Bradley Sowell, Tupe Peko, Idrees Bashir, Brock Huard, Sean Dawkins, Cary Blanchard and every other player represents what I root for more than Irsay. I root for them and the colors not ownership.

 

Yeah, let's just ignore the relevant facts so long as they derail our argument... How you can discuss this issue without mentioning Manning's health is beyond me. Manning's health being a factor goes without saying. Not to mention the fact that Irsay many times specifically mentioned Manning's health as a deciding factor, and has other times alluding to it when talking about "the circumstances," as he's so often put it. 

 

I'm also stumped about how you can ignore the "real cash." The cash always hits the cap, the only question is when. If you pay it, it affects your cap eventually. So yes, that much real cash on five players in one year is reckless.

 

Also, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but many of them are inaccurate. Especially after you factor in keeping guys like Wayne and Mathis, and releasing Freeney (which would have added another $5m in cap penalties).

 

But even if we take your inaccurate numbers, and your dream scenario of cap space + 20 draft picks in 2012 (LOL, by the way), it doesn't change the fact that a) there were cap issues (no matter how much you insist there weren't), and b) that strategy was incredibly risky and would have taken multiple years to pay off. It's just silly to argue that the Colts could have kept Manning, made other signings, signed a draft class of 20 players and relied on those players, and fielded a championship caliber team.

 

And then comparing it to the Broncos, forget about it. The Broncos didn't need cap space to field a team around Manning; they already had a team that made the playoffs and won a game with Tim Tebow. They had good receivers, they had good linemen, good defensive players, etc. A structure in place that was much further along than the 2011 Colts were. How much cap space they had is mostly irrelevant. (And they did have cap space, so there's that.)

 

Irsay looked at the circumstances and decided that keeping Manning wasn't the best way to proceed. That's been consistent in his comments since then, because of the significant difficulties the team would have faced in building a complete roster. He chose the road he thought would be best for his franchise, and that would be best for Manning. It's very nitpicky, at the very least, to try to paint Irsay into a corner based on him saying that he didn't think it would work with Manning. It's plainly obvious that things would have been much, much harder with Manning to reshape the roster and get back to contention. And that's assuming that Manning would come back at a high level, which was uncertain at the time.

 

Yeah, the math could have worked. We even could have kept Manning AND drafted Luck (though that undermines part of your argument with the Browns draft class), and kept some of our guys, and maybe signed a couple other veterans. Irsay said we couldn't have kept Wayne and Mathis, and technically we could have, but the total cash would have become an issue. But the roster would not have been high quality. Any team with Manning on it is going to the playoffs, so long as he's healthy, but that's not the point. You want to really build a roster that has a chance to win every year? You would have been hard pressed to do that with the way things were with the Colts prior to 2012. It's just that simple. Things needed to change back in 2010, when we had precious little at CB, LB, TE, S, RB, OL, etc.

 

No one needs to suck up to Irsay about this; I'm certainly not. It's just plain wrong of you to say that he's lying when he says that the cap issues were a determining factor, and by extension, it's wrong when you say that those who see it the way he sees it are buying in to his lie (or worse, kissing his feet). Your personal fandom isn't at question, but neither is my intelligence. There were multiple reasons for Irsay's decision, and you trying to tie him down to just one doesn't make sense. Irsay saying that he doesn't think the cap would have worked doesn't undo the uncertainty of Manning's health, it doesn't undo having the chance to draft Luck, and it doesn't undo the fact that Manning is in a better situation than he would have been had he stayed.

[southwest1]

So Han Solo gets a ring.  ;)  Irsay can say he is rooting for Manning and I believe him but it has to burn him to some extent that the very things he said earlier in the season about Manning having star wars and not enough rings has been plainly disproved by Elway and company. Manning has put up the best season ever and has a chance at the ring. What Irsay isn't saying is how much pressure will be on his team and Luck to win a ring. The Packers never had to see Favre in another SB and then Rodgers won one. This is the reverse if Peyton wins on Sunday.

I like how all the Star Wars comparisons have come full circle now. Yoda=Peyton Manning, Chewbacca=Andrew Luck/neck beard. I don't see 18 as Han Solo a mercenary for hire & a loner, anti-team player though. Even if Peyton wins his 2nd ring, it does not put undue pressure on Luck to win a Championship almost immediately IMO. A 2 year duration project with completely revamped rosters in both INDY & Denver. 

 

No, I think the Colts made the right decision. I have said that many times. As even if Manning wins the SB this year, you still have 10+ years with Luck. My point is that it raises the pressure on Irsay to get a ring with Luck and that was his own doing given his comments earlier this year. That is why it has to be bitter sweet for him IMO.

 

A seasoned veteran with 14 years in the NFL vs a young field general with 2 years under his belt. No, not a fair competition question at all regarding franchise championships to me. Way to early to make that leap. 

It hasn't yet but if Manning does get a ring on Sunday and maybe another in the next couple of years and the Luck era does not produce championships then I can see this in a similar vein as when the Sox traded Ruth to the Yankees. It will cause irreparable damage to Irsay's legacy which is why he really needs Seattle to win Sunday despite his feelings for Manning. And remember Manning wanted to stay. This isn't like GB where Favre kept threatening to retire year after year and Rodgers had been waiting in the wings for three years. Irsay made the choice for Luck which we all think today was the right decision, myself included, but the heat will be turned up if Manning wins Sunday.

On that point, we agree completely amfootball. 

[Fx Stryker]

Yeah, let's just ignore the relevant facts so long as they derail our argument... How you can discuss this issue without mentioning Manning's health is beyond me. Manning's health being a factor goes without saying. Not to mention the fact that Irsay many times specifically mentioned Manning's health as a deciding factor, and has other times alluding to it when talking about "the circumstances," as he's so often put it.

 

I'm not arguing the health. I said I get that part, and if Irsay states it as such I cannot disagree with him. His current tune is the money, and fielding a productive team. But as I said if he just flat out says it was the health, which is the real reason as we all know, then he looks wrong because Peyton is healthy, and sports owners do not want to look wrong, and never will they.

 

 

Also, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but many of them are inaccurate. Especially after you factor in keeping guys like Wayne and Mathis, and releasing Freeney (which would have added another $5m in cap penalties).

 

The numbers are all the real numbers. I knew they would be questioned, and was going to link it all in my original response, but I didn't feel like it at the time. I guess I have to now.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/cap-hit/2012/

 

The Colts spent $76M on players contracts, cap wise, in 2012. An addition $11M was used on players who were on IR, $32M in dead money, and about $.85M to the practice squad.

 

That is a total of $120M of the $120.6M.

 

We both agreed Dwight shouldn't have been on the team for 2012. He simply wasn't worth his money. The contract Freeney signed in 2007 was a six year $72M contract with $30M guaranteed. 

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2944823

 

Being the final year he only had $5M left in guaranteed money being owed to him. But his cap hit was $19M for the 2012 season. Releasing Freeney would had saved the Colts $14M in cap space. While dead space would have been $5M because that is the figured left he was owed. This is all pointed out when we had the topic last season.

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/10079-dwight-freeney-cut-after-today/?p=273488

 

By releasing Freeney the Colts cap hit for active players from from $76M to $57M. And reducing the total cap from $120M to $101M, but you have to add the additional $5M from Freeney to the dead cap. The Colts are now on the books for $106M in cap money. 

 

Now on to the part of Manning and the money, and the dire cap situation we would've been stuck with. Yes we all acknowledge the uncertainty, and had he not played we would have been screwed beyond repair in the near future. Yet this isn't mentioned by Jim these days, but rather with Manning, assumed healthy, on our books we can't field a good team. Because as I have stated he doesn't mention the part about the risk factor just the money. And like I said if he just states it was risky and I wanted to move on there is no argument here. That isn't his story now because Manning is healthy and he doesn't want to look wrong. He is a great politician. It's all about not being able to field a team around Peyton.

 

On to the money part cap part. The 2012 team had a $10.4M hit from Manning because in 2011 his cap hit was only $16M, but he was paid $26.4M. That has to reflected some how, and we witnessed how it happened. We are not discussing if the move was correct. Just if the part of fielding a competitive team wasn't possible like Irsay says.

 

Remember releasing  Freeney saved $14M, and the Colts books have a $106M hit. If we keep Manning, you remove his $10.4M dead hit, but add his $17M hit it's a $6.6M swing. The books are now on the hook for $112.6M. This is with Luck and the rest of the 2012 including Reggie, Mathis, and Satele. Who Irsay specifically named many times in saying they would not be here if Manning was. Trade away the first pick you have no Luck to pay for. Removing the cap hit for Luck, which was $4m, so the Colts are on the books for $108.6. That is the where I got the extra $11.5M, but it is closer to an extra $12M. I'm not making up numbers, and my numbers are not "inaccurate." 

 

And as I mentioned at the time of July 1, 2012 the Colts had $14.6M in cap space.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a421db/article/available-salarycap-space-for-all-32-nfl-teams

 

The players that were not signed at this point were Luck, Allen, Fleener, and the later trade for Vonte Davis. Along with many other minor contracts done throughout the year. So as of 7-1-2012 the Colts could've had $22M in space by simply keeping Manning and cutting Freeney.

 

http://www.colts.com/team/transactions.html <--Navigate to 07/01/2012

 

I did make a mistake when I said the Colts would have have $26M as of 7-1-12. I accounted for not having Luck twice in the $14M and the extra $12M but cutting Freeney, and not drafting Luck. It would have been $22M.

 

 

But even if we take your inaccurate numbers, and your dream scenario of cap space + 20 draft picks in 2012 (LOL, by the way), it doesn't change the fact that a) there were cap issues (no matter how much you insist there weren't), and b) that strategy was incredibly risky and would have taken multiple years to pay off. It's just silly to argue that the Colts could have kept Manning, made other signings, signed a draft class of 20 players and relied on those players, and fielded a championship caliber team.

 

Also I don't get why you laugh at the 20 draft picks. It's not a fantasy situation. We had them if we wanted. The Colts had 10 in the 2011 draft including the 1st overall.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/2012_draft.htm

 

As we know the Browns offered their entire draft for the number 1. And if we really wanted we could have 

 

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2013/09/mike-holmgren-on-browns-we-offered-our-entire-draft-to-colts-for-andrew-luck/

 

They had 11 picks in 2012. It's not a dream scenario. It's a real real situation by making three moves. It's not some dream fantasy a lot had to go our way for it to happen. It could have happened in three decisions we had complete control of doing. You can laugh at it all you want, but it was a real possibility to go this way.

 

As I mentioned before the cap would have been $22M entering training camp. With only needing to sign Fleener and Allen, but also the hypothetical 11 extra draft picks from the Browns. Now if the trade was taken serious I doubt it would have been 11 draft picks. But I guarantee we could have gotten 2/3 key players from their roster and a few of their early round picks. A very lucrative deal that dynasties are built on. Jimmy Johnson and the Cowboys did that.

 

Now if we just take what they offered the Browns $9.7M in cap to their 11 draft picks plus Allen and Fleener that is a little under $12M for rookies. The new rookie wage scale would have been a huge advantage to us.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cleveland-browns/cap-hit/2012/

 

We could have had an extra $10M in cap plus a dozen or so more players by making three moves we had 100% control of. And you know what we wouldn't even have to spend it. It could have been rolled over, and cover the "real" cash part of all rookies.

 

I've always said I care more for the now than the next 15 years. As you said any team with Peyton healthy will make the playoffs, and we all know you just need to get there. Once you're there it's anyone's game. Until we see Luck outperform Peyton I will fully believe anything Luck did Peyton could have done better. I also believe the development of guys like Fleener, Allen, Ballard, Hilton, and Brazil would be a lot quicker under a veteran quarterback then someone developing with them.

 

I'm not questioning your intelligence, and I'm sure you aren't questioning mine. To think I would post something like this without knowing what I am talking about is insulting. I would never post fallacies, and my numbers are not inaccurate. I truly believe we could have given Manning a pretty damn good situation .

 

Again not about the situation it's more about the idea it was easier to start fresh than try and build a competitive team around Manning. We would have won either way.

[Superman]

...

 

Removed your reply for space.

 

I think you're making this more difficult than it needs to be. It's pretty simple.

 

You stated correctly that the Colts 2012 cap number was $120m. The net savings from releasing Freeney is $14m, and from not having Luck is $4m. That takes you down to $102m, with Wayne and Mathis and everyone else we signed, including our draft picks. Manning's 2012 cap hit would have been $18.4m (prorated signing bonus of $4 + prorated option bonus of $7m + base salary of $7.4m). You're right back up to $120.4m. You don't have room to take back players in a trade with the Browns, and you barely have room to sign extra draft picks. (The Browns had cap hits of $3.7m and $1.5m for Richardson and Weeden; add those and you're already over the cap of $123m.) (Edit: My bad, the salary cap for 2012 was $120.6m, not $123m. Even worse.)

 

Technically, you can make the numbers work, sure. Hypothetically, you can restructure Manning's base salary, to an extent, and adjust your FA strategy, but it's still very tight against the 2012 cap of $123m. Not to mention the real cash, which you can't just ignore. That money gets pushed out to future years, making it hard for you to patch holes in FA in the future. 

 

And about these draft picks, it's just not realistic to try to put together a team that's going to rely on 20 drafted rookies. You lose the lower level veteran players that you need, the players that allow you to bring young players on gradually. But you still only have 53 roster spots.

 

The smart way to do it is to let Mathis walk, restructure Manning, trade the #1 pick, then consolidate those picks for 7-8 top 150 picks. You can make some additional tweaks to your FA strategy, and if you re-draft the 2012 draft class, I'm sure you can come up with a dream hypothetical that puts a strong roster around Manning, but it doesn't change the fact that it would be incredibly difficult to do so. You'd have to nail your picks, sign better FAs, and you're still losing Mathis.

 

Personally, I don't believe in the quality of a roster built in that manner, not in the short term (and you're the one who just stated that you care more about the short term than the next 15 years). Yes, I know anything can happen once you get in the playoffs, but us Colts fans know as well as anyone else how tough it is to win with a thin roster around a great QB. It's why we lost to the Chargers twice in a row, it's why we couldn't finish off the Jets in 2010, etc. And to me, that's the point Irsay was making. You want a deep, strong roster, you're going to be hard pressed to build it if you keep Manning. And it's certainly not going to be the same quality as the Broncos' roster.

 

And again, to say the very least, you're being overly rigid if you think Irsay's comments mean that his decision was made exclusively on the basis of the cap. Everyone knows about Manning's neck and arm; Irsay doesn't have to mention it every time the topic comes up. And of course we know that he had the rights to draft Luck. All of those things were a part of the decision. You acting like they weren't just because Irsay doesn't name them specifically in every conversation just makes no sense.

[buccolts]

Since you said you've always wondered. That statement is just saying you cannot have your cake and eat it too, because if you eat your cake you will no longer have it. It is impossible for both to situations to exist at the same time. Now that I have bored anyone reading this I am off.

 

Sure, but you can have half your cake, and eat the other half too.

Of course, that's a compromise, and supports the premise of the saying.

[Fx Stryker]

....

We can go on for hours, lol.

I just want to point out your math with $102M includes the dead cap of $10.4M Peyton's contract made in 2012. Then you add an extra $18.4M him taking up.

In no situation, healthy and playing, would he have been a $28.8M cap hit. His 5 year $90M had its worst hit in 2017 at $20M.

[Superman]

We can go on for hours, lol.

I just want to point out your math with $102M includes the dead cap of $10.4M Peyton's contract made in 2012. Then you add an extra $18.4M him taking up.

In no situation, healthy and playing, would he have been a $28.8M cap hit. His 5 year $90M had its worst hit in 2017 at $20M.

 

You're right. My bad. Remove $10.4m, and you're at $110m. Cap was $120.6m.

 

The point still stands. You still have to sign your draft picks, and the Browns first rounders equal $5.2m in 2012 alone. You're back up to $115.2m. I don't agree with the idea that this wouldn't have presented cap issues.

[braveheartcolt]

I like to think that anytime a thread/article is created with the word "Irsay" in the title The Old Crow is alerted on his pager that his bitterness is needed.

Close Dustin. Actually a silouette of Irsay is beamed into the sky, TOC dons his PVC Raven outfit, jumps in his bird mobile, and slashes his way througth the streets of Baltimore City to get to his computer before AMF can get her first dig in.

[The Old Crow]

Close Dustin. Actually a silouette of Irsay is beamed into the sky, TOC dons his PVC Raven outfit, jumps in his bird mobile, and slashes his way througth the streets of Baltimore City to get to his computer before AMF can get her first dig in.

Yes, I get a call immediately on the Raven phone and take a virtual trip to Grigson City in the Balmermobile , where I fight Jokers and Riddlers on the forum. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it. Stay tuned next week , as I'll be battling Mayflower Man, in a caper where he tries to steal the Super Bowl 5 trophy from Sports Legends Museum in Baltimore. Same Ravens time, same Ravens channel. Lol

[Fx Stryker]

You're right. My bad. Remove $10.4m, and you're at $110m. Cap was $120.6m.

 

The point still stands. You still have to sign your draft picks, and the Browns first rounders equal $5.2m in 2012 alone. You're back up to $115.2m. I don't agree with the idea that this wouldn't have presented cap issues.

 

The reasons I linked the cap situation before training camp was to show we could sign the draft picks.

 

July 1st we had $14M in space. This is when we didn't sign Luck, Fleener, and Allen. Also Vonte wasn't on our books. Those 4 counted close to $7M in space. The final $7M was spent on little moves made throughout the season, like AQ Shipley. That is how the Colts got very tight to the cap.

 

The cap gets very tight if you add the 20 picks, and all the micro transactions throughout the season.

 

 

But the situation we are discussing the Colts could have had $21M in cap at July 1st, 2012. The $14M we had as of July 1st, and the extra $7M the Manning/Freeney move would have made. This space could have been used on Fleener, Allen and the extra draft picks.

 

Which would have cost only $12M. The Browns entire draft class cost $10M and Fleener and Allen cost $2M. So we could have been sitting at $112M of cap near training cap.

 

Leaving room to still trade for Vonte, and making necessary moves through the season. I think Bill said you want to have at least $5M in cap entering a season, and if you can do that you're in pretty good shape.

[Phil Shifley]

what someone says publicly isn't always how they truly feel. I know that's a shocker. Don't believe for a second Irsay is rooting for Peyton.

[dudeski]

what someone says publicly isn't always how they truly feel. I know that's a shocker. Don't believe for a second Irsay is rooting for Peyton.

why wouldn't he be

[Phil Shifley]

why wouldn't he be

he let him go.

[The Old Crow]

why wouldn't he be

If Manning wins this one, plays three more years and gets to one or two more Super Bowls, how happy is Irsay going to be then , when Peyton would keep the Colts from getting there ? No, I think a Seattle win is the best thing that could happen to Irsay, and I think he knows it. He took the prudent, safe course of action with Luck. It was smart money , and the safe bet. Elway gambled with Manning, and it at least got him an AFC Championship. We will see what happens in the Super Bowl, as Seattle in no pushover? Usually, dominant defenses usually win it all. No, I think Irsay will be in a Jim Zorn jersey this evening.

[dudeski]

he let him go.

so

All smart people would have. Doesn't mean he wants him to fail

[dudeski]

If Manning wins this one, plays three more years and gets to one or two more Super Bowls, how happy is Irsay going to be then , when Peyton would keep the Colts from getting there ? No, I think a Seattle win is the best thing that could happen to Irsay, and I think he knows it. He took the prudent, safe course of action with Luck. It was smart money , and the safe bet. Elway gambled with Manning, and it at least got him an AFC Championship. We will see what happens in the Super Bowl, as Seattle in no pushover? Usually, dominant defenses usually win it all. No, I think Irsay will be in a Jim Zorn jersey this evening.

i think your opinion is so clouded in butthurt that it should be discarded without a glance

[The Old Crow]

i think your opinion is so clouded in butthurt that it should be discarded without a glance

Wrong, that is how the national media and fans around the league will ultimately judge it , and you know it. Take me out of the equation , and it will come down to how many Super Bowls did Manning get for Denver, and Luck for Indy. It may well be Peyton loses this game, plays another season and retires, while Luck leads the Colts to 2-3 Super Bowls. At that point, Irsay made the smart move and gets full credit. When you're a billionaire owner making tough calls, you have to face the judgement of history. It could be great, or equally harsh. It's just the way it is.

[Tsarquise]

If Manning wins this one, plays three more years and gets to one or two more Super Bowls, how happy is Irsay going to be then , when Peyton would keep the Colts from getting there ? No, I think a Seattle win is the best thing that could happen to Irsay, and I think he knows it. He took the prudent, safe course of action with Luck. It was smart money , and the safe bet. Elway gambled with Manning, and it at least got him an AFC Championship. We will see what happens in the Super Bowl, as Seattle in no pushover? Usually, dominant defenses usually win it all. No, I think Irsay will be in a Jim Zorn jersey this evening.

 

100% agree...

[FanFromtheWasteland]

If Manning wins this one, plays three more years and gets to one or two more Super Bowls, how happy is Irsay going to be then , when Peyton would keep the Colts from getting there ? No, I think a Seattle win is the best thing that could happen to Irsay, and I think he knows it. He took the prudent, safe course of action with Luck. It was smart money , and the safe bet. Elway gambled with Manning, and it at least got him an AFC Championship. We will see what happens in the Super Bowl, as Seattle in no pushover? Usually, dominant defenses usually win it all. No, I think Irsay will be in a Jim Zorn jersey this evening.

And if Manning gets hammered reinjurs his neck and is done forever, how happy do you think Irsay would be then?

[The Old Crow]

And if Manning gets hammered reinjurs his neck and is done forever, how happy do you think Irsay would be then?

I think Irsay likes Peyton on a personal level, but on a business level he will be happy his decision was vindicated by releasing Manning and drafting Luck. No one wants to be on the butt end of a trade or release that could have cost you a Championship , or given another organization a shot to win. Trust me, Denver would not be where they are now without Manning. They have been an average organization since the late 1990's. They were so desperate they were starting Tebow ! Part of Irsay would definately be happy he didn't sign Manning because of the neck, if he had a catostrophic injury. Right now though, he is a pain in the neck for Irsay. All these owners, especially the Irsay's, have always put business decisions over personal ones. Anyone can say you would be happy for the guy if he won, but how happy would you be if people are second guessing your move ? Irsay needs and wants Seattle to win from a business and legacy perspective.

[braveheartcolt]

This thread has so much drivel going on, it takes me back to 2011.

[braveheartcolt]

he let him go.

Clueless.

[jvan1973]

I think Irsay likes Peyton on a personal level, but on a business level he will be happy his decision was vindicated by releasing Manning and drafting Luck. No one wants to be on the butt end of a trade or release that could have cost you a Championship , or given another organization a shot to win. Trust me, Denver would not be where they are now without Manning. They have been an average organization since the late 1990's. They were so desperate they were starting Tebow ! Part of Irsay would definately be happy he didn't sign Manning because of the neck, if he had a catostrophic injury. Right now though, he is a pain in the neck for Irsay. All these owners, especially the Irsay's, have always put business decisions over personal ones. Anyone can say you would be happy for the guy if he won, but how happy would you be if people are second guessing your move ? Irsay needs and wants Seattle to win from a business and legacy perspective.

I take the mans word over your speculation..

[The Old Crow]

I take the mans word over your speculation..

That is your call on that. I'm more skeptical , and past experience has taught me to be. Anyway, it's show time !

[mahagga73]

Wrong, that is how the national media and fans around the league will ultimately judge it , and you know it. Take me out of the equation , and it will come down to how many Super Bowls did Manning get for Denver, and Luck for Indy. It may well be Peyton loses this game, plays another season and retires, while Luck leads the Colts to 2-3 Super Bowls. At that point, Irsay made the smart move and gets full credit. When you're a billionaire owner making tough calls, you have to face the judgement of history. It could be great, or equally harsh. It's just the way it is.

Old Crow, you tell it like it is and these fans that didnt know the Colts existed before about 1998 don't like it. Why in the world would Irsay root for a team run by a man (Elway) who told his father he wasn't going to play for his team. I have a hard time believing Jim hopes he wins for reasons you stated and the above. There is no doubt the right decision was made . Manning isn't winning any more Superbowls period, so all you Denverapolis Broncolt fans can resume rooting for your own team.

[The Old Crow]

Jim is dancing in the streets !

[cmgww]

Looks to me like Jimmy was right on with his "Star Wars" numbers comment...the best offense in NFL history (statistically) just got walloped by one of the best defenses in the salary cap era.