My Numbers Say We Are In Really Good Cap Shape For 2012

[Jules]

I've been wanting to post something about this for a while, but how can you actually be a fan of a team just because of it's geography. You don't go to games to watch Jim Irsay's team play, you go to watch the colts players play, guys like Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeney, Marvin Harrison, and Bob Sanders a few years ago. That's how you get close to a team, is by getting to know and love the players. I don't like the colts because they are situated in Indianapolis, Indiana, I like them because my favorite players play there. Peyton Manning is the only reason I ever became a colts fan. Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and Terrel Suggs are the only reasons I became a fan of the Raven's, mainly because of their defense.

That's a big reason why I consider getting rid of Peyton Manning and drafting Andrew Luck to be working against the colts, I didn't think any true colts fan would want to do that.

See, this is why Peyton could be a hot ticket for some sorry team out there who needs to fill in some seats or sell more shirts. They can grab hold of the bandwagon Peyton fan boys/girls.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Thanks for sharing.

From what I understand of your post above, you are a Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeney, Marvin Harrison, and Bob Sanders fan.

What happened when Marvin Harrison left the Colts? Did you become less of a Colts fan?

What will happen when all of them leave the Colts? Will you still remain a Colts fan?

Yes, the team is comprised of its players. However, no one player, or even a set of players are bigger than the team.

The Colts existed before any of the players you mentioned were born, and the Colts will continue to exist way after they retire.

A true Colts fan understands this, and will not work against the team in favor of any one player on the team.

I'll put it a little more clearly. Peyton Manning is the only reason I became a fan of the colts. That's how I got to liking players like Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Sanders, and other guys as well. I will only be a colts fan after Peyton retires if they don't mess up the rest of his career. If they get rid of him, in favor of a talented rookie quarterback, when they have the chance to load this team with top notch talent and players, I will not be happy at all. The same goes for guys like Freeney and Mathis, but on a more minor level. The colts tried to retain Harrison, but he just didn't want to take a paycut. In fact Bill Polian tried several times to negotiate with him. Even though it didn't work out, they showed the compassion and respect that the players deserve. It ticks me off sometimes when I see a random post with someone wanting to trade Freeney for a 1st rounder, or accusing Wayne of being a greedy player who only is in it for the money, basically saying that we can't resign him because he will want to much, even though it has been proven otherwise. The same goes for Robert Mathis. Winning without all the guys that made it fun in the 1st place is just not the same.

[Ramblinwreck7]

See, this is why Peyton could be a hot ticket for some sorry team out there who needs to fill in some seats or sell more shirts. They can grab hold of the bandwagon Peyton fan boys/girls.

Real classy, another fan who just thinks it's all about the money and business. That doesn't seem to fit the Tony Dungy/colts profile to me...

[Jules]

I'll put it a little more clearly. Peyton Manning is the only reason I became a fan of the colts. That's how I got to liking players like Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Sanders, and other guys as well. I will only be a colts fan after Peyton retires if they don't mess up the rest of his career. If they get rid of him, in favor of a talented rookie quarterback, when they have the chance to load this team with top notch talent and players, I will not be happy at all. The same goes for guys like Freeney and Mathis, but on a more minor level. The colts tried to retain Harrison, but he just didn't want to take a paycut. In fact Bill Polian tried several times to negotiate with him. Even though it didn't work out, they showed the compassion and respect that the players deserve. It ticks me off sometimes when I see a random post with someone wanting to trade Freeney for a 1st rounder, or accusing Wayne of being a greedy player who only is in it for the money, basically saying that we can't resign him because he will want to much, even though it has been proven otherwise. The same goes for Robert Mathis. Winning without all the guys that made it fun in the 1st place is just not the same.

Who are all these top notch players and talent?

[Jules]

Real classy, another fan who just thinks it's all about the money and business. That doesn't seem to fit the Tony Dungy/colts profile to me...

Don't sweat it.

If we lose Manning you could be a Lions fan. They kinda have a young/developing Colts feel to them with their offense.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Who are all these top notch players and talent?

Use your imagination, they are players that we can draft...

[Ramblinwreck7]

Don't sweat it.

If we lose Manning you could be a Lions fan. They kinda have a young/developing Colts feel to them with their offense.

Troll...

[Jules]

Use your imagination, they are players that we can draft...

True. But, then again they are rookies. Just like Luck will be. Luck is probably the safest guy we can draft. Many say he could be a bust but then again so could any player the Colts draft be a bust.

But, overall Luck is probably the safest not to bust IMO.

I can't say I think a group of rookies is going to set us over the edge next season until they prove themselves even if Manning is better then ever.

[Jules]

Edit

I also sincerely hope the Colts don't lose too many fans if Irsay has to make a difficult decision here. At the same time new fans can always be created even if old ones leave.

Winning cures all though. It always does.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Coltssouth
Personal attack

[UndecidedFrog]

I'll put it a little more clearly. Peyton Manning is the only reason I became a fan of the colts. That's how I got to liking players like Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Sanders, and other guys as well. I will only be a colts fan after Peyton retires if they don't mess up the rest of his career. If they get rid of him, in favor of a talented rookie quarterback, when they have the chance to load this team with top notch talent and players, I will not be happy at all. The same goes for guys like Freeney and Mathis, but on a more minor level. The colts tried to retain Harrison, but he just didn't want to take a paycut. In fact Bill Polian tried several times to negotiate with him. Even though it didn't work out, they showed the compassion and respect that the players deserve. It ticks me off sometimes when I see a random post with someone wanting to trade Freeney for a 1st rounder, or accusing Wayne of being a greedy player who only is in it for the money, basically saying that we can't resign him because he will want to much, even though it has been proven otherwise. The same goes for Robert Mathis. Winning without all the guys that made it fun in the 1st place is just not the same.

Thanks for your clarification.

However, I think you are just confirming what I understood before. There exists a certain set of players that currently play for the Colts of whom you are a fan. And if the Colts refuse to re-sign any of them, or at least make a perceived compassionate attempt at re-signing them, you will not be happy.

It is the responsibility of the owner of the team to provide a vision for the future as the team progresses. It is the responsibility of the FO to translate that vision into active management of player personnel. Players do not play forever. Players do not always deserve nor receive mega raises. This is a business, and the FO needs to balance its roster against the salary cap constraints. As such, difficult decisions will be made, and high-priced veterans may be released to make room for younger rookies. A team that does not replenish youth from the draft will grow old and stale and lose on the field, as their veteran players decline with age. This replenishment is normal and to be expected. In today's NFL, it is rare, and becoming rarer to have players retire without having played for multiple teams. Much that some fans love the scenario of having their heroes retire with the team, sometimes this isn't feasible. We have many examples of this (Montana, Unitas, Namath, Favre). You have even provided a good example in Harrison. After failing to reach agreement with the Colts, he was granted his release. He failed to find continued employment as a NFL WR the following year, and retired shortly thereafter. He tested the market and found he was not in demand at the price he placed on himself.

As a Colts fan, I recognize I have no influence on what the Colts FO does in its deliberations when making player personnel decisions. As a Colts fan I hope that they make wise decisions, while analyzing every opportunity they have.

To think about eliminating one opportunity, especially an opportunity that the team has announced that it is seriously considering, is antithetical to what a fan should be all about. To act according to such bad thinking is not serving the best interests of the Colts organization. It is an attempt to impose the fan's will and beliefs on the team.

One thing I can guarantee you, is that the Colts will continue to win without Manning, Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Sanders and Harrison. It may not be the same for you. But I will continue to relish as I have even before Manning and the others.

[GoColts8818]

I'll put it a little more clearly. Peyton Manning is the only reason I became a fan of the colts. That's how I got to liking players like Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Sanders, and other guys as well. I will only be a colts fan after Peyton retires if they don't mess up the rest of his career. If they get rid of him, in favor of a talented rookie quarterback, when they have the chance to load this team with top notch talent and players, I will not be happy at all. The same goes for guys like Freeney and Mathis, but on a more minor level. The colts tried to retain Harrison, but he just didn't want to take a paycut. In fact Bill Polian tried several times to negotiate with him. Even though it didn't work out, they showed the compassion and respect that the players deserve. It ticks me off sometimes when I see a random post with someone wanting to trade Freeney for a 1st rounder, or accusing Wayne of being a greedy player who only is in it for the money, basically saying that we can't resign him because he will want to much, even though it has been proven otherwise. The same goes for Robert Mathis. Winning without all the guys that made it fun in the 1st place is just not the same.

So if Irsay comes out and says they offered Manning a chance to stay if he would agree to push back option bonus date or agree to a new contract that was more incentive based because they do not feel comfortable about Peyton Manning's health and Peyton told them he didn't want to do either of those things then you'll be cool with it?

The Colts are NOT picking Luck over Manning. No one is suggesting that Luck should be the QB here next year if Manning is healthy. Irsay has made it pretty clear that if Manning is healthy and wants to be here he will be the QB here next year. However, when you hold the top pick in the draft and you have a 36 year old QB coming off three neck surgries in 18 months and you are still unsure of his health you and you have what people are calling the best prospect to come along since John Elway looking you in the face you would be foolish not to at least take a long hard look at drafting him regardless of Peyton's health. If Peyton was 26 this would be a different story. Then we would be like the Rams and looking to sell the pick to the highest bidder if we were confident that Peyton was going to be healthy enough to play. He's not. He's getting older and is probably going to retire in the near future regardless of his health. Odds are if Peyton comes back and plays like Peyton we aren't going to be in poistion to get a QB as rated as highly as Luck and even if we are there is no promise that that QB is going to be as good as Luck is supposed. Also based on last year it's pretty clear we need a back up QB. So yes Luck does fill a need.

Jim Irsay knows his job is to make sure this team wins not only now but also when Peyton leaves which is going to happen same day rather we take a QB or not. The dream situation is for Peyton to be able to come back and play here and draft Luck to be groomed to take over for Manning when he's done so there is no drop off. That might not be able to happen and the largest road block to it happening right now is Peyton Manning's health. Not because the Colts are so in love with Luck. Yes Peyton Manning has been cleared to resume his football career. Yet anyone worth anything who reported on that quickly pointed out that story didn't mean anything beucase the nerve is still not back in his arm. Again anyone who is worth anything has reported no one knows when, if or how much that nerve will come back. So if the Colts still don't know by March 8th if Manning's nerve is back or not they can't just lock themselives into a contract with Peyton Manning on a hope that it will come back because if it doesn't come back and we have to release him after that the cap hit jumps to a third of the sallary cap and destroys our future and not only that there is a hit for the full four yeas of the contract vs. the one time 10 million hit we take if we release him this year. That's a HUGE risk to take on any player, yes even Peyton Manning, if you don't know if he's fully healthy or not because if you get it wrong it destroys the future of your team. I doubt even Peyton Manning would ask the Colts to take that kinda risk on him, after all it was him who wanted this option date put in there in the first place in case he couldn't come back and that is what the Colts might be looking at.

This is a race against time right now and it doesn't look good right now which is really going to leave Irsay with two options to give to Peyton when they talk.

1. They can move the option date back giving him more time to heal. Even then though there is no promise he will heal by whatever date they set and at some point the Colts are going to have to make a call on what to do with the future. I'd even argue that it might be the best idea to push the date back because then you go past the start of free agency and let's be honest if we don't have Peyton Manning on this team there are other players we can spend that money on to make the team better. Also the way you build the team is going to be different if you are building it for Peyton Manning or building it for Andrew Luck. Also there is the Luck factor. Right now Luck sounds like he will be happy to come to Indy even with Peyton is here but he's left the door open to change his mind if you listen to him. If we push that date back past the draft then maybe Luck says get me out of Indy. Then say it turns out Peyton can't play. How bad are the Colts going to look if they come out this without Manning or Luck? Not mention how much not having a QB for another year will set this team back.

2. They can tell Peyton Manning we can release you today and take the 10 million cap hit but we want to resign you to a new contract that is going that has very little cap money to it and will be incentive driven. Maybe they put another option date in there at the end of this season and tack two more years on to it that is a little less incentive driven so they can get out of it if Peyton isn't health but keep him and pay him fairly if he is going forward.

Peyton will have to decide if he's willing to do either of those. If he's not the Colts really have no choice they have to release him. Not because they love Luck so much but because they can't risk the future of the franchise on a hope that Peyton Manning's nerve in his arm will come back.

Yes that is extremely cold but that's what the buisness side of sports forces you to be. It makes you think with your head and very rarely let's your heart play a factor in it if you are going to make the smart move. It stinks it's not fair and no one is going to like it if it comes to that. However, people are going to like it alot more than if Peyton has to retire and we have to gut the team to pay that one third of a salary cap hit we took from keeping him and spend probably four to five years at least trying to rebuild from that.

As to your last points. I think the people thinking we are going to trade Freeney are being a little unrealistic in terms of what they think they are going to get back for him. Basicly their logic is well he's not that great and he's getting older so clearly someone else is going to give us a top draft pick for him! Also I think there is a rather large cap hit that will come from trading Freeney that will prevent that. Also Irsay has already said Freeney and Mathis will be back next year and Pagano is already talking about how to use them in the new defense. Now with that said I do think Freeney needs his contract addressed but I am guessing that will come in the form of a contract extension. Unless Freeney plays hard ball with them and makes them do something they don't seem to want to do. It sounds like they expect him to be back. I just don't see the Colts giving up BOTH faces of the franchise in one off-season and it looks like they might already being forced into giving up Peyton. I also don't think they are going to give up the only two players on defense they have that other teams fear and make more holes to be filled. We already have enough. So unless Freeney just refuses to let the Colts address his contract at all I expect him to be back.

I fully expect Mathis to be back. He seems super excited about the new hire and in fact the day we hired Pagano he was the first player I saw come in and do an interview about him. He talks like he isn't going anywhere. He seems to be a free agent in name only. I think the Colts plan to use the tag on him and then probably work out a long term contract. Irsay has said him and Garcon are the top targets this off-season. I saw one person talk about tagging Mathis and trading him but that was quickly shot down by people.

As for Wayne. Wayne has always given the hint he wants to get paid. I know he recently said he wants to come back to Indy. I am sure he does most players don't want to leave their current team and don't like to leave one when they have been around as long as Reggie has and has been succesful as Reggie has and is beloved as Reggie is. With that said I don't think Reggie wants to be a Colt bad enough to take less money to stay here. I think Reggie wants to get paid what he's worth which I am sure he feels is as one of the top WRs in the game. I also think Reggie figured out a long time ago that if we keep Peyton we probably aren't going to have the money to give him what he's worth and if we don't keep Peyton it probably doesn't make much sense to keep a 33 year old WR with a rookie QB. If we don't keep Reggie it'll be another business move. I think Reggie gets that and as much as it will stink to see him go it happens in the NFL. The good thing is Reggie is doing everything like a pro and if he leaves I don't think it'll be messy and I'll look forward to the day he is brought back and put in the ring of honor where he belongs.

Franky as Colts fans we've been spoiled. Other than Edge we've never really had to see our fan favorites go some place else to finish their careers. Glenn and Marvin retired as Colts more or less. Heck even Dungy retired rather than being fired or taking a job some place else. The other fan favorites Polian did a great job keeping under contract and keeping them Colts their whole careers. That's why I think it's coming as such a blow to some people to think we could see up to seven key players for a lot of years to this team go in one off-season in Manning, Wayne, Clark, Mathis, Freeney, Saturday, and Brackett. Now with that said I don't think you are going to see us lose all seven but I would be shocked if all seven are back next season. It seems like money and age have finally caught up to the Colts.

[GoColts8818]

Troll...

Did you really just call Jules a Troll...that's funny...

[GoColts8818]

It is the responsibility of the owner of the team to provide a vision for the future as the team progresses. It is the responsibility of the FO to translate that vision into active management of player personnel. Players do not play forever. Players do not always deserve nor receive mega raises. This is a business, and the FO needs to balance its roster against the salary cap constraints. As such, difficult decisions will be made, and high-priced veterans may be released to make room for younger rookies. A team that does not replenish youth from the draft will grow old and stale and lose on the field, as their veteran players decline with age. This replenishment is normal and to be expected. In today's NFL, it is rare, and becoming rarer to have players retire without having played for multiple teams. Much that some fans love the scenario of having their heroes retire with the team, sometimes this isn't feasible. We have many examples of this (Montana, Unitas, Namath, Favre). You have even provided a good example in Harrison. After failing to reach agreement with the Colts, he was granted his release. He failed to find continued employment as a NFL WR the following year, and retired shortly thereafter. He tested the market and found he was not in demand at the price he placed on himself.

Exactly and if you ignore the future when your players retire you become the Buffalo Bills of the 90's. Look at those great teams and look at what happened when almost all of them retired over night. You haven't heard from them since. I really don't want that to happen to the Colts and as much as I hate seeing fan favorites leave when they have one or two good years left (that probably doesn't aply to Peyton if healthy but that is what we are talking about with most of these players) I understand for the future of the franchise it has to happen with some of them. I also understand if our GM does his job right there are going to be new fan favorites for me to love and embrace in the future. Think about Packers fans do you really think if you told them six or seven years ago Brett Favre would retire a Viking that they wouldn't be up in arms much like a lot of our fans are right now and screaming how could the Packers let that happen and that the Packers would be so wrong for not letting him finish his career as a Packer? Yet now most of the Packers fans I know wouldn't trade Aaron Rodgers for another run wih Favre in his prime. It doesn't mean they aren't grateful for Favre they have just learned to love Rodgers too and he's there now.

I've been down this road before with the Colts. Before Peyton Manning came along Jim Harbaugh was the most beloved player in this city not named Reggie Miller. Heck I'd even say Jim Harbaugh has been my all-time favorite Colt. I remember the day we traded him being upset. Not because I thought it was the wrong move but just because I hated to see him go. I remember for one brief moment thinking that Manning or Leaf kid better be good. If had held on to that anger I would have never gotten to enjoy the Manning years. I am guessing that's what we are going to see this time if we end having to let Peyton go. People are going to be mad, there is no way around that and probably for longer than the brief moment I was upset about Harbaugh leaving. Yet if Luck or RG3 comes in and plays well people are quickly going to fall in love with him and say you know what I still love Peyton and I hope when he does retire he comes back and signs his one day contract to retire a Colt but I am learning to love this new guy too.

[BmoreColt]

Thanks for sharing.

From what I understand of your post above, you are a Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeney, Marvin Harrison, and Bob Sanders fan.

What happened when Marvin Harrison left the Colts? Did you become less of a Colts fan?

What will happen when all of them leave the Colts? Will you still remain a Colts fan?

Yes, the team is comprised of its players. However, no one player, or even a set of players is bigger than the team.

The Colts existed before any of the players you mentioned were born, and the Colts will continue to exist way after they retire.

A true Colts fan understands this, and will not work against the team in favor of any one player on the team.

And from what I understand you are a Andrew Luck fan... See how that works both ways?

[braveheartcolt]

And from what I understand you are a Andrew Luck fan... See how that works both ways?

He is a Colts fan who thinks Luck is a better long term option that a 'dodgy' Manning. As I and any others do. But I'll trust the 'football guys' at the Colts to decide what is best, and go with that. You and Wreck are showing your true colours. Most people have reasons for becoming a fan of a sports team, and they are all ligitimate. But jumping from team to team because of individuals is not my cup of tea thank you very much. And it is a minority stance as well, I would imagine, world-wide, and sports wide.

[BmoreColt]

He is a Colts fan who thinks Luck is a better long term option that a 'dodgy' Manning. As I and any others do. But I'll trust the 'football guys' at the Colts to decide what is best, and go with that. You and Wreck are showing your true colours. Most people have reasons for becoming a fan of a sports team, and they are all ligitimate. But jumping from team to team because of individuals is not my cup of tea thank you very much. And it is a minority stance as well, I would imagine, world-wide, and sports wide.

We are showing our true colors because we both like Peyton and think the long term success of this franchise would be better served trading the pick. Anything else you would like to jump all over? We both give logical reasoning in our ideas, go look at one of my if you were the GM threads in the draft forum. I don't bash Luck, but he is NO Manning, not even close, and I don't have to like the idea of tossing Manning out of town.

[04DarkShadowGT]

Real classy, another fan who just thinks it's all about the money and business. That doesn't seem to fit the Tony Dungy/colts profile to me...

This is about the money and business, sports are a business. That is just the way it is. That will never change as much as you want it to.

Besides I would love to get as far away from the doughboy soft defense and philosphy Dungy brought with him. The Tampa 2 was a detriment to the Colts, imagine if Peyton actually had a real defense behind him for 13 years. Something tells me there would be more than 1 banner in the rafters. Just sayin.

[BmoreColt]

It's basically the same thing, Once the option bonus is paid, the only thing he could really restructure would be his base salaries to lower the cap# in any given year.

We could use an accurate total cap breakdown from you good sir, after all you are our very reliable Colts forum capologist!

[husker61]

i have said from bay one that if manning can't play the colts should draft luck. and i am sure 99% of the fans feel the same way. saying people that think manning is going to be ok to play are only partisan manning worshipers is wrong. could manning not be healthy, yes. could luck be a bust, yes. could you keep manning (and he isn't able to play) and draft luck (and he is a bust), yes. all those serarios mean the colts would be a bad team for a while. in my opinion keeping manning and trading the pick for a lot o f very good picks is what's best for the team. if manning isn't quite the same (still better than most qb's) at least the colts are putting a much stronger team around him. then in the future you wouldn't have to have a great qb with a below average team to win. making it easier to draft a good qb to continue winning.

the problem i have with some people that say the colts should have luck over manning is that they believe everything negative about manning that is from unnamed sourses, but find reasons to disregard everything from players and the former gm (a great talent evaluator) that have actually seen him throw.

[BmoreColt]

i have said from bay one that if manning can't play the colts should draft luck. and i am sure 99% of the fans feel the same way. saying people that think manning is going to be ok to play are only partisan manning worshipers is wrong. could manning not be healthy, yes. could luck be a bust, yes. could you keep manning (and he isn't able to play) and draft luck (and he is a bust), yes. all those serarios mean the colts would be a bad team for a while. in my opinion keeping manning and trading the pick for a lot o f very good picks is what's best for the team. if manning isn't quite the same (still better than most qb's) at least the colts are putting a much stronger team around him. then in the future you wouldn't have to have a great qb with a below average team to win. making it easier to draft a good qb to continue winning.

the problem i have with some people that say the colts should have luck over manning is that they believe everything negative about manning that is from unnamed sourses, but find reasons to disregard everything from players and the former gm (a great talent evaluator) that have actually seen him throw.

I couldn't have said it any better! Nobody is considering that by taking luck, if he does pan out in four years, when he is do for a contract he will make 13-15 million a season, cause that's how the game and finances work. This means the colts would be back in a similar situation in four years, and that talent and cap wise of who you could get, you could load up for luck right now. Yet those same people would say that manning can't lead this team to a SB right now, would argue luck can before his small contract is up. And like you said, they are positive to negative manning news and negative to positive manning news!

[FireJimCaldwell]

We could use an accurate total cap breakdown from you good sir, after all you are our very reliable Colts forum capologist!

Picture the salary cap as a puzzle.

Not all of the pieces are present to create an exact fit. In some cases you know a general idea and make a fairly close guess, and in some cases, you could come up with a few different scenarios that would work.

I don't see it as the pretty picture that others do. It will take some creativity depending on what choices we make on some players.

[schwamm]

I have to wonder where this impression that Frog hates Manning comes from. I admit I haven't read every thread in the forum to see the full history, but have read through this one a couple times to see if I missed ssomething.

Let's get this out first... I am a Colts fan. Have been since the "glory days" of Trudeau and George. I am also a season ticket holder, and have been fortunate enough to watch Manning play for his entire career. I often imagine sharing memories with my future grandchildren of Peyton's magical moments on the field.

That said, this thread has provided me with interesting and good information. As a Colts fan, my biggest concern is for the long term interest of the team. From my reading, I am seeing an unemotional financial analysis. I haven't seen Frog say anything derogatory about Manning, just that paying the March 8 signing bonus would possibly/likely have severe repercussions that could cripple the team for years, especially if Manning is unable to play, or only able to play one more season.

You likely despise the idea that Manning might not be around as a Colt next season. I know I'm not thrilled about it. But don't shoot the messanger for showing you why you probably ought to expect it.

If the information shared is correct, a simple cost/benefit analysis would suggest the team is better off releasing Manning and kicking off the Luck (or whoever we draft or pick up in free agency) era. It looks like it simply costs too much, and the risks are too great to pay Manning the bonus.

Frog's information could be wrong, or there could be errors the way Frog crunched of the numbers. So if you are convinced of another reality, show where there are mistakes in logic. Labeling anyone a Manning hater, just because they share facts that shake up your world view, seems kinda juvenile, though.

[UndecidedFrog]

And from what I understand you are a Andrew Luck fan... See how that works both ways?

You are mistaken. If the Colts decide not to draft Luck, and start the season with ...Painter, I will still be a Colts fan.

[UndecidedFrog]

I have to wonder where this impression that Frog hates Manning comes from. I admit I haven't read every thread in the forum to see the full history, but have read through this one a couple times to see if I missed ssomething.

Let's get this out first... I am a Colts fan. Have been since the "glory days" of Trudeau and George. I am also a season ticket holder, and have been fortunate enough to watch Manning play for his entire career. I often imagine sharing memories with my future grandchildren of Peyton's magical moments on the field.

That said, this thread has provided me with interesting and good information. As a Colts fan, my biggest concern is for the long term interest of the team. From my reading, I am seeing an unemotional financial analysis. I haven't seen Frog say anything derogatory about Manning, just that paying the March 8 signing bonus would possibly/likely have severe repercussions that could cripple the team for years, especially if Manning is unable to play, or only able to play one more season.

You likely despise the idea that Manning might not be around as a Colt next season. I know I'm not thrilled about it. But don't shoot the messanger for showing you why you probably ought to expect it.

If the information shared is correct, a simple cost/benefit analysis would suggest the team is better off releasing Manning and kicking off the Luck (or whoever we draft or pick up in free agency) era. It looks like it simply costs too much, and the risks are too great to pay Manning the bonus.

Frog's information could be wrong, or there could be errors the way Frog crunched of the numbers. So if you are convinced of another reality, show where there are mistakes in logic. Labeling anyone a Manning hater, just because they share facts that shake up your world view, seems kinda juvenile, though.

Thank you for seeing the clear logic.

It seems they trust firejimcaldwell's numbers. Yet, I know firejimcaldwell's numbers are the same/similar to mine, since we have the same base assumptions.

They don't want to know the consequences of certain favored scenarios. And they don't like me because I keep showing these consequences.

[BmoreColt]

Thank you for seeing the clear logic.

It seems they trust firejimcaldwell's numbers. Yet, I know firejimcaldwell's numbers are the same/similar to mine, since we have the same base assumptions.

They don't want to know the consequences of certain favored scenarios.

You can pretend like you don't know where we are coming from all you want. You take every opportunity in every thread to state why Peyton doesn't belong. I don't really care that two new posters are coming to your aid, people are catching on to what you do.

[UndecidedFrog]

You can pretend like you don't know where we are coming from all you want. You take every opportunity in every thread to state why Peyton doesn't belong. I don't really care that two new posters are coming to your aid, people are catching on to what you do.

Thank you for your kind concerns.

I take the opportunity, whenever it presents itself, to show the facts and the consequences of proposed ideas.

It isn't hating to show the facts that we currently have:

1) an aging QB who will be 36 years old this upcoming season,

2) this QB is rehabbing off 3 neck surgeries

3) this QB's throwing ability is uncertain

4) this QB hasn't played one down for a year

5) this QB's contract provides an option bonus of $28MM due March 8, 2012

6) the QB's contract will gut the team in terms of salary cap, if the team pays the option bonus and the QB retires shortly thereafter

7) have the overall #1 draft pick

8) have the great fortune of having the opportunity to use that pick on a highly ranked, much heralded, the best QB prospect since Elway/Manning.

It seems pretty obvious what the team should do given these facts.

You are free to have different opinions, but the facts above do not change.

[Larry Horseman]

If the Pats and Saints have similar cap issues, they have to consider that.

Further, if Brady or Brees are coming off 3 neck surgeries, and there is uncertainty around their throwing abilities, the Pats and Saints should definitely consider that.

If Brady or Brees demonstrate that they are aging with diminishing production, their respective teams should consider options to lower their contracts if the timing is there.

First, let me say that nearly all NFL teams have salary cap issues (minus the teams with cheap owners like the Bucs and Bengals). Owners tend to spend to the limit every year. As for the teams at hand, the Saints have a ton of people to resign and the Pats are up against the cap, so they are in no better shape than the Colts.

Secondly, you missed the point. You have been preaching that "probability" says elite QBs will begin to diminish around age 35. Brady takes up just as much cap as PM, and he will be 35 at the start of the year. Should the Pats cut him because probability says he is diminishing and overall their team is really young? Brees is 33 and will demand as much, probably more, money...should the Saints only offer him to a two year deal and let him walk if he refuses because probability says he only has a couple of years left?

PM has shown no signs of diminishing play (Brees has actually thrown more INTs over the last few years) but does have a medical issue. Both Brees and Brady have had medical issues earlier in their careers, making them at a higher probability of re-injury as they get older. Also, Brees throws a lot of INTs and Brady has not played that well in the playoffs since early in his career.

By what you have been saying, what the probabilities say, and what other pieces of "evidence" say, the only conclusion is that any team would be stupid to sign Manning or Brady or sign Brees to anything longer than a 2 year deal.

Would you just please admit that while stats are a very important part of reality, there is a narrative about the non-statistical--the story, the emotional side of things, the "eye test"--that must coincide with them to make them truly full of meaning?

[UndecidedFrog]

Secondly, you missed the point. You have been preaching that "probability" says elite QBs will begin to diminish around age 35. Brady takes up just as much cap as PM, and he will be 35 at the start of the year. Should the Pats cut him because probability says he is diminishing and overall their team is really young? Brees is 33 and will demand as much, probably more, money...should the Saints only offer him to a two year deal and let him walk if he refuses because probability says he only has a couple of years left?

1) I don't preach anything. I provide information. If you accept it, fine. If you don't accept it, fine.

2) It is not clear that Brady takes up just as much cap as PM. It is not clear that their contracts are structured similarly such that the risk of Brady retiring before the expiration of his contract will gut his team.

3) Brady currently presents a less of a risk than PM because

a) he is a year younger

b) he has been playing at a relatively high level, although we have seen some drop off lately,

c) he has played all games last season

d) he is not rehabbing from any surgeries

e) his throwing abilities are not uncertain

Brees is under 35. To decrease the potential risk for the Saints, their management may offer him a two-year deal plus another 4-year (year to year) deal on top of that structured as a management option to trigger on a year to year basis.

I find both Brees and Brady as less of a risk than PM under the current circumstances. Do you think differently?

PM has shown no signs of diminishing play (Brees has actually thrown more INTs over the last few years) but does have a medical issue. Both Brees and Brady have had medical issues earlier in their careers, making them at a higher probability of re-injury as they get older. Also, Brees throws a lot of INTs and Brady has not played that well in the playoffs since early in his career.

I would beg to differ. PM has shown nothing thus far after his surgeries. Neither he, nor Irsay have provided details as to his throwing ability. We have wildly differing reports that claim one thing and another. I think it is reasonable to suspect that PM may have some throwing issues given the fact that he had neck surgeries that fused his C7 which directly innervates his triceps.

Yes, both Brees and Brady have had injuries. However those injuries (to my knowledge) have not been injuries that affected their nerves, and more specifically, the nerves that control their triceps, which are required to throw the ball.

By what you have been saying, what the probabilities say, and what other pieces of "evidence" say, the only conclusion is that any team would be stupid to sign Manning or Brady or sign Brees to anything longer than a 2 year deal.

By what the statistics show, it gives management some evidence upon which to recommend that their owners negotiate 2-year deals with management options to extend beyond that annually. What the players' respective agents may want may be entirely different, and that is the start of the negotiation process. I suspect the players and their agents have a projection of the future that depicts no injuries, no decline in performance, even as the player ages, etc. Eventually, both sides will come to an agreement that is somewhere in the middle. If there is a significant gap, a deal will not be done, and the player (and his agent) will be shopping for a new team ala Marvin Harrison in 2008, or a Joe Montana in 1992.

Would you just please admit that while stats are a very important part of reality, there is a narrative about the non-statistical--the story, the emotional side of things, the "eye test"--that must coincide with them to make them truly full of meaning?

I will admit that there are many factors that go into a projection of how a player will play in upcoming years for a team. Management will have one projection that will tend to emphasize a conservative risk adverse approach. The player and his agent will have another projection that will tend to disregard all risks. Typically, the way to bridge the gap in negotiations is to assign the difference to incentive payments. Management will want the flexibility to release a player (without the financial consequences) at the time he is projected to significantly decline. The player and his agent will want security, and want to be locked in via a front-loaded contract often, beyond the time he is projected to significantly decline in performance.

Yes, some of these factors will be emotional, and subjective. But ultimately, it will require a meeting of minds to come up with a contract.

The way things stand now with PM and the Colts, is that the contract they previously agreed to has provided management with an out by not paying the option bonus due March 8, and releasing PM. Irsay will have to consider all these factors in making his decision.

[Larry Horseman]

1) I don't preach anything. I provide information. If you accept it, fine. If you don't accept it, fine.

2) It is not clear that Brady takes up just as much cap as PM. It is not clear that their contracts are structured similarly such that the risk of Brady retiring before the expiration of his contract will gut his team.

3) Brady currently presents a less of a risk than PM because

a) he is a year younger

b) he has been playing at a relatively high level, although we have seen some drop off lately,

c) he has played all games last season

d) he is not rehabbing from any surgeries

e) his throwing abilities are not uncertain

Brees is under 35. To decrease the potential risk for the Saints, their management may offer him a two-year deal plus another 4-year (year to year) deal on top of that structured as a management option to trigger on a year to year basis.

I find both Brees and Brady as less of a risk than PM under the current circumstances. Do you think differently?

I would beg to differ. PM has shown nothing thus far after his surgeries. Neither he, nor Irsay have provided details as to his throwing ability. We have wildly differing reports that claim one thing and another. I think it is reasonable to suspect that PM may have some throwing issues given the fact that he had neck surgeries that fused his C7 which directly innervates his triceps.

Yes, both Brees and Brady have had injuries. However those injuries (to my knowledge) have not been injuries that affected their nerves, and more specifically, the nerves that control their triceps, which are required to throw the ball.

By what the statistics show, it gives management some evidence upon which to recommend that their owners negotiate 2-year deals with management options to extend beyond that annually. What the players' respective agents may want may be entirely different, and that is the start of the negotiation process. I suspect the players and their agents have a projection of the future that depicts no injuries, no decline in performance, even as the player ages, etc. Eventually, both sides will come to an agreement that is somewhere in the middle. If there is a significant gap, a deal will not be done, and the player (and his agent) will be shopping for a new team ala Marvin Harrison in 2008, or a Joe Montana in 1992.

I will admit that there are many factors that go into a projection of how a player will play in upcoming years for a team. Management will have one projection that will tend to emphasize a conservative risk adverse approach. The player and his agent will have another projection that will tend to disregard all risks. Typically, the way to bridge the gap in negotiations is to assign the difference to incentive payments. Management will want the flexibility to release a player (without the financial consequences) at the time he is projected to significantly decline. The player and his agent will want security, and want to be locked in via a front-loaded contract often, beyond the time he is projected to significantly decline in performance.

Yes, some of these factors will be emotional, and subjective. But ultimately, it will require a meeting of minds to come up with a contract.

The way things stand now with PM and the Colts, is that the contract they previously agreed to has provided management with an out by not paying the option bonus due March 8, and releasing PM. Irsay will have to consider all these factors in making his decision.

You just continue to spew big words which make your argument sound intelligent.

And yes, it is clear Brady has just as big of an impact on the Pats cap...his contract included $48.5 million guaranteed, and that is over 4 years not five, so if anything Brady actually has a worse impact on the Pats cap than Manning's guaranteed money.

Diminishing production and injury are two different things. So yes, PM may be injured, but he has not shown while taking snaps in a game that his production has diminished.

I will leave this alone, I fully understand what you are doing and what statistics do and don't mean. I would just urge you to think about not being so one-sided in your analysis of diminishing production of elite QBs and PM. Things are full of harmony if we attempt to merge together, instead of push apart, the aspects of them that we view as opposites (in this case statistics and the "eye test"/emotional/ intuition).

Also, I do not fully endorse cutting or retaining PM. It is a situation that has both positives and negatives regardless of what decision is made and I do not believe that as a fan I have enough information to make the appropriate decision. I can't stomach letting PM go, nor can I stomach setting the franchise into a tail spin by not letting PM go. I'm glad it is not my decision to make and I will support Irsay either way. Let's just not pretend that stats are the only or even main way this decision will be made.

[BmoreColt]

Thank you for your kind concerns.

I take the opportunity, whenever it presents itself, to show the facts and the consequences of proposed ideas.

It isn't hating to show the facts that we currently have:

1) an aging QB who will be 36 years old this upcoming season,

2) this QB is rehabbing off 3 neck surgeries

3) this QB's throwing ability is uncertain

4) this QB hasn't played one down for a year

5) this QB's contract provides an option bonus of $28MM due March 8, 2012

6) the QB's contract will gut the team in terms of salary cap, if the team pays the option bonus and the QB retires shortly thereafter

7) have the overall #1 draft pick

8) have the great fortune of having the opportunity to use that pick on a highly ranked, much heralded, the best QB prospect since Elway/Manning.

It seems pretty obvious what the team should do given these facts.

You are free to have different opinions, but the facts above do not change.

Frog, the reason I like firejimcaldwell #'s is that he gives numbers and does not put his opinion on the subject and is not asking for luck or asking for Peyton when he presents those #'s. I also asked for the teams salary cap numbers you proceeded to give yet another break down on Manning. You gave me something what I didn't ask for to push your own agenda. And like LarryHorseman just confirmed, while ur stats are solid they lack intangibles and variables that affect those numbers.

What I would like from you, since you are good with #'s, is the colts cap breakdown next year, how much room is available with manning on the team, how much room is available with both manning and luck, and how much room with luck and no manning. Then a player breakdown of how certain free agents on the team would account against the cap resigned and how much would be saved to be cut.

If you did this, which is what I originally wanted I would apologize to you for being critical of your numbers and how it comes off like you are pushing your own agenda!

[UndecidedFrog]

You just continue to spew big words which make your argument sound intelligent.

And yes, it is clear Brady has just as big of an impact on the Pats cap...his contract included $48.5 million guaranteed, and that is over 4 years not five, so if anything Brady actually has a worse impact on the Pats cap than Manning's guaranteed money.

Diminishing production and injury are two different things. So yes, PM may be injured, but he has not shown while taking snaps in a game that his production has diminished.

I will leave this alone, I fully understand what you are doing and what statistics do and don't mean. I would just urge you to think about not being so one-sided in your analysis of diminishing production of elite QBs and PM. Things are full of harmony if we attempt to merge together, instead of push apart, the aspects of them that we view as opposites (in this case statistics and the "eye test"/emotional/ intuition).

Also, I do not fully endorse cutting or retaining PM. It is a situation that has both positives and negatives regardless of what decision is made and I do not believe that as a fan I have enough information to make the appropriate decision. I can't stomach letting PM go, nor can I stomach setting the franchise into a tail spin by not letting PM go. I'm glad it is not my decision to make and I will support Irsay either way. Let's just not pretend that stats are the only or even main way this decision will be made.

Well, I think we agree on one thing. I'm glad it is not my decision to make and I will support Irsay either way.

[jedi.creech]

Frog, the reason I like firejimcaldwell #'s is that he gives numbers and does not put his opinion on the subject and is not asking for luck or asking for Peyton when he presents those #'s. I also asked for the teams salary cap numbers you proceeded to give yet another break down on Manning. You gave me something what I didn't ask for to push your own agenda. And like LarryHorseman just confirmed, while ur stats are solid they lack intangibles and variables that affect those numbers.

What I would like from you, since you are good with #'s, is the colts cap breakdown next year, how much room is available with manning on the team, how much room is available with both manning and luck, and how much room with luck and no manning. Then a player breakdown of how certain free agents on the team would account against the cap resigned and how much would be saved to be cut.

If you did this, which is what I originally wanted I would apologize to you for being critical of your numbers and how it comes off like you are pushing your own agenda!

+100

I agree on this...

I have read Frog's post, some informative information is given, but always a negative twist on Manning... I am just sick of Frogs post. Is there a way to just ignore his post he makes?

[BmoreColt]

+100

I agree on this...

I have read Frog's post, some informative information is given, but always a negative twist on Manning... I am just sick of Frogs post. Is there a way to just ignore his post he makes?

The crazy part about this is when I call him out on it, others quickly rush to his aid as if I am the bad guy! Maybe in this particular post he refrained from obvious Manning bashing, but people are catching on to what he does! Notice how he didn't reply to my request?!!

[UndecidedFrog]

Frog, the reason I like firejimcaldwell #'s is that he gives numbers and does not put his opinion on the subject and is not asking for luck or asking for Peyton when he presents those #'s. I also asked for the teams salary cap numbers you proceeded to give yet another break down on Manning. You gave me something what I didn't ask for to push your own agenda. And like LarryHorseman just confirmed, while ur stats are solid they lack intangibles and variables that affect those numbers.

What I would like from you, since you are good with #'s, is the colts cap breakdown next year, how much room is available with manning on the team, how much room is available with both manning and luck, and how much room with luck and no manning. Then a player breakdown of how certain free agents on the team would account against the cap resigned and how much would be saved to be cut.

If you did this, which is what I originally wanted I would apologize to you for being critical of your numbers and how it comes off like you are pushing your own agenda!

I guess you don't seem to realize that the stats are historical, and have, by definition, incorporated all your intangibles, intuitions and emotions. The results speak for themselves.

The team salary cap is projected to be $121.2MM for 2012.

Scenario 1:

If Irsay pays the option bonus due March 8, and PM is paid his 2012 salary, PM's contract will represent $17MM of that cap or 14%.

Add in the other hits to the cap by QBs:

Collins remnant: $1.25MM even though he retired this past season, because the way his contract is structured, only $2.75 MM hit 2011's cap

Painter remnant: $0.02MM assuming he is released.

QB#3: $0.4MM, assumed at league minimum or Orlovsky: $0.7MM assumed at a 20% increase from his previous 1-year deal.

So the total cap hit without QB2 (Luck/RG3) for the QB position in 2012 will be $18.67MM without Orlovsky, and $19.07MM with Orlovsky, about 16% of the total team cap.

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2013 will be $18.4MM without Orlovsky, and $18.8MM with Orlovsky, about 15% of the total team cap

Scenario 2:

Same as Scenario 1, but add in QB2 @ $4.2MM assumes a 5% increase of Cam Newton's contract

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2012 will be $22.87MM without Orlovsky, and $23.27MM with Orlovsky, about 19% of the total team cap

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2013 will be $23.7MM without Orlovsky, and $24.1MM with Orlovsky, about 20% of the total team cap

Scenario 3:

Same as scenario 2, without PM:

Release of PM in 2012 will hit the cap one time at $10.4MM

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2012 will be $16.27MM without Orlovsky, and $16.67MM with Orlovsky, about 14% of the total team cap

In 2013, this comes down because the one time hit from PMs release is gone.

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2013 will be $5.6MM without Orlovsky, and $6.0MM with Orlovsky, about 5% of the total team cap

[UndecidedFrog]

+100

I agree on this...

I have read Frog's post, some informative information is given, but always a negative twist on Manning... I am just sick of Frogs post. Is there a way to just ignore his post he makes?

You can ignore my posts by using the ignore feature.

[BmoreColt]

I guess you don't seem to realize that the stats are historical, and have, by definition, incorporated all your intangibles, intuitions and emotions. The results speak for themselves.

The team salary cap is projected to be $121.2MM for 2012.

Scenario 1:

If Irsay pays the option bonus due March 8, and PM is paid his 2012 salary, PM's contract will represent $17MM of that cap or 14%.

Add in the other hits to the cap by QBs:

Collins remnant: $1.25MM even though he retired this past season, because the way his contract is structured, only $2.75 MM hit 2011's cap

Painter remnant: $0.02MM assuming he is released.

QB#3: $0.4MM, assumed at league minimum or Orlovsky: $0.7MM assumed at a 20% increase from his previous 1-year deal.

So the total cap hit without QB2 (Luck/RG3) for the QB position in 2012 will be $18.67MM without Orlovsky, and $19.07MM with Orlovsky, about 16% of the total team cap.

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2013 will be $18.4MM without Orlovsky, and $18.8MM with Orlovsky, about 15% of the total team cap

Scenario 2:

Same as Scenario 1, but add in QB2 @ $4.2MM assumes a 5% increase of Cam Newton's contract

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2012 will be $22.87MM without Orlovsky, and $23.27MM with Orlovsky, about 19% of the total team cap

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2013 will be $23.7MM without Orlovsky, and $24.1MM with Orlovsky, about 20% of the total team cap

Scenario 3:

Same as scenario 2, without PM:

Release of PM in 2012 will hit the cap one time at $10.4MM

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2012 will be $16.27MM without Orlovsky, and $16.67MM with Orlovsky, about 14% of the total team cap

In 2013, this comes down because the one time hit from PMs release is gone.

So the total cap hit for the QB position in 2013 will be $5.6MM without Orlovsky, and $6.0MM with Orlovsky, about 5% of the total team cap

How did you get that 121#? That's with who brought back? I am more interested

In the totality of the salary cap to see who can be reworked, resigned, cut.. Seeing what the best options draft and player wise going forward. I did the cap and had the colts with 5-10 free cap space after resignings and all...

[Superman]

How did you get that 121#? That's with who brought back?

I think he's saying the NFL salary cap for 2012 is projected to be $121 million. Don't mean to jump in or speak for anyone else, just hope I'm helping.

[BmoreColt]

I think he's saying the NFL salary cap for 2012 is projected to be $121 million. Don't mean to jump in or speak for anyone else, just hope I'm helping.

Yeah I'm confused..

[Superman]

Yeah I'm confused..

He's not saying the Colts payroll for 2012 is $121 million. He's saying the salary cap is $121 million. And I think he's leaving it to you or anyone else to figure out what those scenarios would mean for our payroll numbers in 2012 and beyond.

I'll save you a little trouble: Our payroll number is significantly less if we release Manning before March 8, even with the $10.4 million dead cap hit in 2012. Beyond 2012, there is NO cap hit for Manning's contract if we release him before March 8.

If you really want Manning to remain a Colt (and I think most of us do), hope we can either renegotiate the option bonus or release him and sign him to a new contract, because I don't think Irsay is going to pay him that $28 million bonus.

[schwamm]

You can pretend like you don't know where we are coming from all you want. You take every opportunity in every thread to state why Peyton doesn't belong. I don't really care that two new posters are coming to your aid, people are catching on to what you do.

So maybe I'm slow to "catch on to what Frog is doing"... but don't mistake "new poster" for not being able to read or form an opinion.

What I'm still seeing is someone presenting data, and giving their best interpretation of that data. Based on the numbers Frog sees, Frog thinks Manning is likely out the door, and has made every effort to explain why that is the logical conclusion. You see the same data, and have a different conclusion. That makes neither of you a savior or a hater, just inclined to forecast the situation differently. If Frog has attempted to convey his point too many times for your liking, you may, of course, ignore him. Having the opinion is still his prerogative, as is sharing it on this forum. Tracking his opinion or not is yours.

When you follow up by saying you'll apologize if Frog shows you more numbers (crunched to your satisfaction) it comes off as a little lazy. If you have a point to prove, then figure out how to prove it. Don't ask someone else to prove your arguement for you, especially when they disagree with you.

And Mr. Horseman, please don't start insulting people for being intelligent. From what I've read, Frog isn't just "spewing big words". The arguement sounds intelligent because it is, even where you don't agree.