Sick Of The Peyton Stories And Press

[wercolts]

Can someone explain why Manning would want to stay with the team using football reasons?

Familiarity, a system already in place created for and partially by him, 9 playoff appearances in a row, a solid core of Super Bowl vets that have been through what he has been through, an upcoming great draft position, a really good contract, indoor games half the season......should I continue?

[Restored]

In my opinion they cannot restructure the contract as it is in its current state. Releasing him and signing a new deal is an entirely different situation. What I said was and I quote “it will still cost more than the same contract with any other team” Translation: If we release him he counts 10.4 against our cap right off the bat. If he signed a deal that was 3 years 6 million each year in base salaries and incentives(not happening by the way, but using it as an example), his cap hit here would be 16.4 for 2012, and would be 6 million in Miami, or Washington, or any of the other 29 NFL teams. Yes a team could be willing to pay more than the Colts would be, but that doesn’t change the fact that if the Colts would agree to the same terms as whatever team offers him a contract, 10.4 million will be added to the 2012 cap hit, thus making it higher than any other team.

Ah I see where you are coming from now. I mean it looks like the most logical thing to do at this point would be to "release" Peyton and just re-sign him to an entirely new deal.

That is what I was saying, which seems was misinterpreted. Based on your hypothetical assumption and the option bonus is picked up, the same potential cap ramifications are set in stone and there isn’t a way to restructure it to prevent those if he were to be cut/released/retires, which goes back to the picking up the option is not a sound business deal. Not sure what you mean by years 4-5 so I can’t comment on that. The only thing after the option bonus is due that Manning could do to adjust his contract would be to lower his base salaries, which would only lower the cap hit for any given year, but if the option bonus is paid, then the salary cap issues of trading/releasing him are still on the table and can’t go away

What I meant by years 4-5 is that in years 4 and 5 of the current contract, they are more of option years. I'm not sure what exactly "option" means by thats what I remember Polian saying when they were announcing the deal. Getting a new deal for Peyton is more than likely the best case scenario at this point.

You might not understand the salary cap, but I have a fairly good grasp of what happens to any given player for various scenarios, but I have not had time to crunch the #’s of the whole roster, but have for a number of players.

I do too but what I'm saying is its kinda pointless to figure considering adding/remove player X could throw off the whole cap equation. ie. you trade Freeney and keep Brackett or you keep Freeney and release Brackett. Couple those two possible choices with the many other possible choices and you are looking at a ton of numbers that could easily change off of one player staying/traded/released.

It’s called being politically correct. Not many athletes are brutally honest. Manning sure isn’t. I wouldn’t want to sit for 3-4 years if I were him. Manning didn’t want to sit coming out of UT, and while he might be willing to sit, I doubt that he wants to. Big difference.

I mean honestly, what you would want to do and what Luck wants to do are two different things. Yes Luck is being politically correct but you can't judge intent. All you have is his word and if thats what he says then thats all you have to go by in terms of substance. If I were Luck I'd be fine with sitting for 2-3 years considering its the NFL and I'd realize that getting thrown right into the fire sometimes isn't the best idea when you have the option to sit and learn from an outside perspective behind the best of all time.

It’s called those picks would be of players at different positions and again, that was a hypothetical used by various people arguing for trading the pick and I used it as an example. It would depend on the players that were available, but there are scenarios that 4 & 23 would be more advantageous even if more expensive than the #1 pick. Just like paying Andre Johnson & Calvin Johnson a combined 18 million would be more expensive than paying Collie and Gonzalez 5. It costs more money, but you are likely going to get far better results.

I don't see how getting a top flight reciever and a O Linemen is more advantageous than drafting a franchise QB. Please refer to the Miami Dolphins.

Again, that 5 million isn’t sitting the bench, or as an insurance policy at best. It’s about allocating resources.

You are saying that in essence you'd expect these additional players to be immediate impact players which in all likelyhood, they wouldn't be. I'm sure they'd contribute, but how much is difficult to scale.

Of course it’s an investment and we did lack it last year, I’m just saying that we would be better suited drafting Luck and playing him as opposed to tying up so much money in the QB position with only one playing. One alternative to that would be keeping Manning and making a different draft selection or a trade for a package.

We've already tied up a ton of money in the QB position all of Peyton's career. We are a QB centered franchise and have been.

This is post is directed towards FireJimCaldwell

The # 1 reason I would say that he would prefer the Colts use the #1 pick on a player that would play or trade it for a package of draft picks that could contribute as opposed to having the #1 pick used on a back up who will have 1/4th of the fan base screaming for with Manning's first interception.

[betheafan41]

I think it's pretty clear this goes beyond football reasons on both sides. Manning hates nothing more than change and you can't get a bigger change than going to a new team or new city, he also values wanting to play for one team for his career. No those aren't football reasons but you are kidding yourself if you don't think those don't mean something to Peyton when he is looking at this. Sure from a football stand point staying here doesn't make a lot of sense but you know what if you look at the Arizona, Seattle, Miami, and Washington's recent football moves going there doesn't make a lot of sense either. It's not like any of those teams would be thought of as a NFL powerhouse. If a team like the Ravens or 49ers were really interested in him then it would probably make some sense from a football standpoint but they aren't (if you believe the reports about Harbaugh being truly committed to Alex Smith). The Jets are the wildcard team in this because from a talent wise they do make sense. With that said I am not sure if Peyton is going to want to put up with the soap opera that the Jets are and I honestly believe Mort when he says Peyton doesn't want to play in the same city as his brother.

and bringing in a new gm after firing pollian (who was close to manning) firing the whole coaching staff and hiring new coaches isnt a big change? their more then likely moving to a west coast offense under that new OC and according to pittsburgh fans all that guy likes running is little short passes or bubble screens. that wont sit well with manning. and the personell move hasnt sat well with manning obviously with the comment of " feels like everyone is walking on egg shells here ".

Redskins have a decent defense and they have some young talented WR's in hankerson and terrance austin and a good combo of running backs and a few of their games if they had a better QB would have won...should have beaten dallas both times but QB and kicker mistakes gave them the loss, should have beaten minnesota... again QB Mistakes, those 3 alone would have them finishing at 8-8 i believe if manning was on the skins they would have beaten new england, it was already a shoot out to the end but a mistake in the redzone by grossman cost them the game pretty much.

Seattle could use a QB, they dont have a definite starter but they dont have a big play WR

Arizona yeah they dished the money into kolb but fitzgerald wants manning and im pretty sure what fitz wants he will get but that will be seen in due time

Miami i agree doesnt fit, their QB last year was starting to get better

Jets same thing the team is self destructing right infront of their fans eyes. and it starts with Rex Ryan and his big mouth. Namath was right to call him out about everything he says because he cant back up anything.

so no i dont agree that there isnt a place for him out there with a team. and as most of manning fans are stating he makes the colts that much better, well if thats the case then he can make any team that much better. he took the colts to two superbowls basically just him self and last season proved it with a 2-14 season.

[wercolts]

Can someone explain why Manning would want to stay with the team using football reasons?

..........they were in the playoffs the last time he played, despite having half the squad on IR, and in the Super Bowl the year before. Contrary to the ^cowpatties^, the Colts are still a serious contender with Manning.

[Larry Horseman]

and sorry to say but i dont think the colts have any better of a chance to win with manning then they do with out manning. there is just to many holes on the team including the offensive line. the defense was horrible last year, even if manning was playing this past season, i doubt they would have made it to the super bowl. not with that defense, its just my opinion. again im not saying i dont agree with what your saying, id love to see manning back but its time to move on with out him. im a fan of the colts first and a fan of manning second

I assume you mean of winning the SB, not just winning? This team would have made the playoffs with PM (this is obviously an empty statement and I have little to back it up except for that the 2011 roster actually looked a little better, at least not worse, on paper than the rosters the last two years). The run game was much better this year without the threat of a passing game, so the OL was improved. You also say how bad the D was this year, but statistically the Pats were worse than Indy and they made the SB. Further, Indy's D this year was only slightly worse than last year and they won 10 games with Blaire White and Jacob Tamme as crucial offensive weapons.

[LaughingAtIrsay]

:offtopic: Have y'all heard the ''Win A Date With Peyton'' on Sportscenter? Lol

[betheafan41]

I assume you mean of winning the SB, not just winning? This team would have made the playoffs with PM (this is obviously an empty statement and I have little to back it up except for that the 2011 roster actually looked a little better, at least not worse, on paper than the rosters the last two years). The run game was much better this year without the threat of a passing game, so the OL was improved. You also say how bad the D was this year, but statistically the Pats were worse than Indy and they made the SB. Further, Indy's D this year was only slightly worse than last year and they won 10 games with Blaire White and Jacob Tamme as crucial offensive weapons.

yeah i meant superbowl. sorry about the confusion. yeah the patriots had a worst defense then the colts but the patriots also had a better offensive line then the colts too.

[Nadine]

I am bored of if.......my eyes glaze over because speculation means nothing at this point. And they've hashed and rehashed it every which way they can.

There's no more football to talk about so, this is THE story.

it's only a few more weeks

[coltsblue1844]

As cute as that statement is, it doesn't mean anything. We aren't talking about non-sentient cell destruction by result of a heat inducing chemical reaction. We are talking about the media; a media full of commentators whose job(s) include expressing their opinion, and making something from nothing. So there can be plenty of smoke without a fire. It's called smoke and mirrors.

you mean like the "smoke" about us definitely keeping Polian? Or that we were DEFINITELY keeping Caldwell? Or that we were going to hire Tressel? Or perhaps the smoke that we were naming Keith Butler DC after a weekend a while back? Or how about Austin Collie being forced to retire or face impending death on the field after the 2010 season?

You mean that all of those were only smoke but no fire? Yeah, i think so too...the media is wrong a LOT more often than they're right...just because they start a "story" and then everyone else jumps on it, doesnt mean that there is ANY truth to it. Some people believe too much of what they see/hear/read people say to be fact

[FireJimCaldwell]

Let's assume we're taking a QB #1 and he knows that.

What football reasons would he have for wanting to stay?

If I come up with one, I'll be sure to post it.

[FireJimCaldwell]

In my opinion they cannot restructure the contract as it is in its current state. Releasing him and signing a new deal is an entirely different situation. What I said was and I quote “it will still cost more than the same contract with any other team” Translation: If we release him he counts 10.4 against our cap right off the bat. If he signed a deal that was 3 years 6 million each year in base salaries and incentives(not happening by the way, but using it as an example), his cap hit here would be 16.4 for 2012, and would be 6 million in Miami, or Washington, or any of the other 29 NFL teams. Yes a team could be willing to pay more than the Colts would be, but that doesn’t change the fact that if the Colts would agree to the same terms as whatever team offers him a contract, 10.4 million will be added to the 2012 cap hit, thus making it higher than any other team.

Ah I see where you are coming from now. I mean it looks like the most logical thing to do at this point would be to "release" Peyton and just re-sign him to an entirely new deal.

Comparing paying 28 million vs. a release & sign of course it would be more beneficial for the Colts, but I doubt Manning wants any part of Andrew Luck. I wouldn't. You do know that if Manning were to return and start game 1, and in the first drive he threw an interception, that you would have a band of ^fool^s screaming for Luck to come in and replace him.

That is what I was saying, which seems was misinterpreted. Based on your hypothetical assumption and the option bonus is picked up, the same potential cap ramifications are set in stone and there isn’t a way to restructure it to prevent those if he were to be cut/released/retires, which goes back to the picking up the option is not a sound business deal. Not sure what you mean by years 4-5 so I can’t comment on that. The only thing after the option bonus is due that Manning could do to adjust his contract would be to lower his base salaries, which would only lower the cap hit for any given year, but if the option bonus is paid, then the salary cap issues of trading/releasing him are still on the table and can’t go away

What I meant by years 4-5 is that in years 4 and 5 of the current contract, they are more of option years. I'm not sure what exactly "option" means by thats what I remember Polian saying when they were announcing the deal. Getting a new deal for Peyton is more than likely the best case scenario at this point.Even then, the cap have to go up quite a bit to be able to absorb the cap ramifications. I just saw where Chappell has an article coming out saying Manning can be a Colt if he wants to reduce his cap # or something like that, which will only insult him. Peyton has called it a one year contract with a 4 year option.

You might not understand the salary cap, but I have a fairly good grasp of what happens to any given player for various scenarios, but I have not had time to crunch the #’s of the whole roster, but have for a number of players.

I do too but what I'm saying is its kinda pointless to figure considering adding/remove player X could throw off the whole cap equation. ie. you trade Freeney and keep Brackett or you keep Freeney and release Brackett. Couple those two possible choices with the many other possible choices and you are looking at a ton of numbers that could easily change off of one player staying/traded/released.That is one reason I haven't worked out the numbers for the whole team because too many variables come in to play with like you said 93 vs. 58, or 58 vs. 44. It's easy to say what would happen with Brackett or Clark individually, but it's almost impossible to do so with the whole roster.

It’s called being politically correct. Not many athletes are brutally honest. Manning sure isn’t. I wouldn’t want to sit for 3-4 years if I were him. Manning didn’t want to sit coming out of UT, and while he might be willing to sit, I doubt that he wants to. Big difference.

I mean honestly, what you would want to do and what Luck wants to do are two different things. Yes Luck is being politically correct but you can't judge intent. All you have is his word and if thats what he says then thats all you have to go by in terms of substance. If I were Luck I'd be fine with sitting for 2-3 years considering its the NFL and I'd realize that getting thrown right into the fire sometimes isn't the best idea when you have the option to sit and learn from an outside perspective behind the best of all time.

They might be different and they might be dead on. I wouldn't want to go where to sit for any amount of time. Say Luck sits for 2-3 years. Then plays for 10, and has a similar injury to Peyton. That's 2-3 years of playing he won't get back. Like others have said NFL stands for not for long and while he can be paid for those 2-3 years there is nothing in my mind that would say he would honestly be okay for sitting for that long. Top of the line Quarterbacks aren't okay with things like that. Sorgi or Painter, different story. Yes there are benefits of sitting and learning behind Manning, but I doubt they outweigh the learning he would do by playing & doing.

It’s called those picks would be of players at different positions and again, that was a hypothetical used by various people arguing for trading the pick and I used it as an example. It would depend on the players that were available, but there are scenarios that 4 & 23 would be more advantageous even if more expensive than the #1 pick. Just like paying Andre Johnson & Calvin Johnson a combined 18 million would be more expensive than paying Collie and Gonzalez 5. It costs more money, but you are likely going to get far better results.

I don't see how getting a top flight reciever and a O Linemen is more advantageous than drafting a franchise QB. Please refer to the Miami Dolphins.

That would be be based on the assumption of those picks being used for those positions, which was only referenced by the 2 players taken last year and in no way should have been taken as a suggestion for the Colts. So the Dolphins reference is a bit moot.

Again, that 5 million isn’t sitting the bench, or as an insurance policy at best. It’s about allocating resources.

You are saying that in essence you'd expect these additional players to be immediate impact players which in all likelyhood, they wouldn't be. I'm sure they'd contribute, but how much is difficult to scale.

I'm that the players would contribute to the team before a backup QB unless QB1 goes does. Same goes for the likely extra # 1 next year. I wouldn't trade it for any package, but for the right package, I'd sign off on it assuming Manning is healthy and under contract by draft day.

Of course it’s an investment and we did lack it last year, I’m just saying that we would be better suited drafting Luck and playing him as opposed to tying up so much money in the QB position with only one playing. One alternative to that would be keeping Manning and making a different draft selection or a trade for a package.

We've already tied up a ton of money in the QB position all of Peyton's career. We are a QB centered franchise and have been.Yes we have and we've had the greatest quarterback to play the game and one ring to show for it. To continue down the same path, one could argue would be foolish. I don't see an overall change to the structure and we would be lucky to match the success over the past 13 years.

This is post is directed towards FireJimCaldwell

Above

[shakedownstreet]

i'm sick of it too, so therefore, i did not read any of this thread

[WSO]

If the entire media was saying "Manning will be a Colt" without any reliable sources or anything said from Irsay and Manning then no one would be complaining. Think about it. It's only because there is a real good chance he will be cut that the media is now deemed evil, unreliable etc.

[GoColts8818]

and bringing in a new gm after firing pollian (who was close to manning) firing the whole coaching staff and hiring new coaches isnt a big change? their more then likely moving to a west coast offense under that new OC and according to pittsburgh fans all that guy likes running is little short passes or bubble screens. that wont sit well with manning. and the personell move hasnt sat well with manning obviously with the comment of " feels like everyone is walking on egg shells here ".

When did I ever say that wasn't a big change? They also kept Clyde and brought back has old QB coach ro run the offense plus it's still in Indianapolis where he has spent his whole career so he still knows the city. It's a change alright but not as big as it would be if he went to a new team and a new city.

Redskins have a decent defense and they have some young talented WR's in hankerson and terrance austin and a good combo of running backs and a few of their games if they had a better QB would have won...should have beaten dallas both times but QB and kicker mistakes gave them the loss, should have beaten minnesota... again QB Mistakes, those 3 alone would have them finishing at 8-8 i believe if manning was on the skins they would have beaten new england, it was already a shoot out to the end but a mistake in the redzone by grossman cost them the game pretty much.

The Redskins are not an NFL power house which is what I said. Most people would question a lot of moves they have made in recent history.

Seattle could use a QB, they dont have a definite starter but they dont have a big play WR

I didn't say Seattle couldn't use a QB. You also pointed out they are more than a QB away.

Arizona yeah they dished the money into kolb but fitzgerald wants manning and im pretty sure what fitz wants he will get but that will be seen in due time

Mort also pointed out the Cardinals have a track record of letting their other good young players get away (Fitz being a clear exception) and he seemed to think that would cause Peyton to have some reluctance about going there.

Miami i agree doesnt fit, their QB last year was starting to get better

Stil if they could have Peyton Manning over Matt Moore they would be fools not to do it. With that said they are also more than a QB away.

Jets same thing the team is self destructing right infront of their fans eyes. and it starts with Rex Ryan and his big mouth. Namath was right to call him out about everything he says because he cant back up anything.

Which again brings to my point that none of these are just great situations to walk into if you are Peyton Manning. Does it mean he can't go there? No I never said that. I just said there aren't really any slam dunk teams out there for him to go to. Clearly he could go to any one of these teams but are they really that much better than the Colts? Not really, they might be a little better but they aren't light years ahead of where the Colts are with Manning. If the 49ers or Texans a team that is built for a Super Bowl NOW and has all the peaces in place other than maybe a truly great QB that would be different. These other teams are going to need more work than just adding Manning to the team just as the Colts are.

so no i dont agree that there isnt a place for him out there with a team. and as most of manning fans are stating he makes the colts that much better, well if thats the case then he can make any team that much better. he took the colts to two superbowls basically just him self and last season proved it with a 2-14 season.

Oh good night can we drop the whole Manning fan thing? It's replaced the whole "real" fan thing as just being stupid and what you say when you don't like something someone said. I've said more than once on this forum that I would welcome Andrew Luck with open arms and I would love for Andrew Luck to be our QB. I've also said more than once that I don't think Manning is coming back here. I've also said more than once that it's going to be a more than one year rebuilding project even if Manning comes back. I just don't think if we are looking things as purely football that these other teams aren't that much better than the Colts.

Also if you think he took the 2006 team to the Super Bowl by himself you are sorly misktaken. While he did a great job managing games (outside of the second half of the New England game which was the stuff of legend) it was the running game and the defense we road to the Super Bowl that year. Manning helped no question about that but I would argue we won that Super Bowl and had that run because we didn't have to depend on only Peyton and when we truly needed him to be great (The second half of the Pats game) he was.

I also never said there isn't another team he could play for. There clearly is. I am just saying that those other teams aren't in much better shape than the Colts are. They might be some what better but no one is going to call any of those teams outside of maybe the Jets a true Super Bowl contender by just adding Peyton alone.

I will stand by what I said if we are asking why Peyton wants to come back to Indy it's going to go beyond just football reasons. If you don't agree with that fine you don't have too.

[Jules]

Nobody really has to pay attention to the media ya know. Nobody is putting a gun to your heads.

I mean, most of my feelings on a lot of this situation change as the days/weeks go on at times. Most of my hunches/feelings/opinions are often based on my own personal experiences following this team over the years not what I hear or see on tv.

[Jules]

Yep. You are right. It's only the media that have turned this into a 'story'. Your Manning bias is clouding your judgement. Now ain't that cute....

Yep. I mean we have heard nothing from Peyton/Irsay either have we? I mean nothing at all of course......

Not to mention we also get input from Polian now on the radio and sometimes Dungy!!!

You know. All media BAD BAD BAD. Unless it's good news on the Colts of course. Goods new from the media on the Colts=Good Good Good gimmie more.

[Restored]

Ah I see where you are coming from now. I mean it looks like the most logical thing to do at this point would be to "release" Peyton and just re-sign him to an entirely new deal.

Comparing paying 28 million vs. a release & sign of course it would be more beneficial for the Colts, but I doubt Manning wants any part of Andrew Luck. I wouldn't. You do know that if Manning were to return and start game 1, and in the first drive he threw an interception, that you would have a band of ^fool^s screaming for Luck to come in and replace him.

You are going back to questioning intent again when that cannot be judged. No one knows if Peyton wouldnt mind coexisting with Luck. He's said he's fine with it before. This isn't some QB controversey. Luck and every other person in America knows that it's Peyton's team and will continue to be so.

What I meant by years 4-5 is that in years 4 and 5 of the current contract, they are more of option years. I'm not sure what exactly "option" means by thats what I remember Polian saying when they were announcing the deal. Getting a new deal for Peyton is more than likely the best case scenario at this point.Even then, the cap have to go up quite a bit to be able to absorb the cap ramifications. I just saw where Chappell has an article coming out saying Manning can be a Colt if he wants to reduce his cap # or something like that, which will only insult him. Peyton has called it a one year contract with a 4 year option.

I really don't see it being an insult to him. If anything, he's jus telling Peyton "Look, I know you probably can still play at a high level if you come back, we just have to give you the money in a more spread out fashion. If you come back and play good for the next 2-3 years, you get paid as such for those years.

I do too but what I'm saying is its kinda pointless to figure considering adding/remove player X could throw off the whole cap equation. ie. you trade Freeney and keep Brackett or you keep Freeney and release Brackett. Couple those two possible choices with the many other possible choices and you are looking at a ton of numbers that could easily change off of one player staying/traded/released.That is one reason I haven't worked out the numbers for the whole team because too many variables come in to play with like you said 93 vs. 58, or 58 vs. 44. It's easy to say what would happen with Brackett or Clark individually, but it's almost impossible to do so with the whole roster.

Agreed.

I mean honestly, what you would want to do and what Luck wants to do are two different things. Yes Luck is being politically correct but you can't judge intent. All you have is his word and if thats what he says then thats all you have to go by in terms of substance. If I were Luck I'd be fine with sitting for 2-3 years considering its the NFL and I'd realize that getting thrown right into the fire sometimes isn't the best idea when you have the option to sit and learn from an outside perspective behind the best of all time.

They might be different and they might be dead on. I wouldn't want to go where to sit for any amount of time. Say Luck sits for 2-3 years. Then plays for 10, and has a similar injury to Peyton. That's 2-3 years of playing he won't get back. Like others have said NFL stands for not for long and while he can be paid for those 2-3 years there is nothing in my mind that would say he would honestly be okay for sitting for that long. Top of the line Quarterbacks aren't okay with things like that. Sorgi or Painter, different story. Yes there are benefits of sitting and learning behind Manning, but I doubt they outweigh the learning he would do by playing & doing.

Who's to say he wouldn't take these 2-3 years as "Grad School"? He's coming into a unique position that not many new QB's coming out of college get the chance to be in. What defines "Top of the line Quarterbacks"? Do all of them have to have huge ego's to think they are the best and should start right away no matter what? Humbleness seems to define Luck better than egotistical at this point. How do you know they don't outweigh? I see quite a few QB's that have sat for some time and eventually had good success after:

A. Aaron Rodgers *Prime Example*

B. Carson Palmer *Sat 1 year behind Jon Kitna*

C. Phillip Rivers *Sat 1 year behind Drew Brees*

I don't see how getting a top flight reciever and a O Linemen is more advantageous than drafting a franchise QB. Please refer to the Miami Dolphins.

That would be be based on the assumption of those picks being used for those positions, which was only referenced by the 2 players taken last year and in no way should have been taken as a suggestion for the Colts. So the Dolphins reference is a bit moot.

No no, your missing the point here. I'm saying that 2 picks or however many extra picks you get from trading for Luck isn't worth it. Passing on a potential franchise QB especially in our situation isn't worth it. You have to take him.

You are saying that in essence you'd expect these additional players to be immediate impact players which in all likelyhood, they wouldn't be. I'm sure they'd contribute, but how much is difficult to scale.

I'm that the players would contribute to the team before a backup QB unless QB1 goes does. Same goes for the likely extra # 1 next year. I wouldn't trade it for any package, but for the right package, I'd sign off on it assuming Manning is healthy and under contract by draft day.

So your saying that a player drafted next year would have an impact in Manning's era? Manning would already be in the 2nd of the 3 years we are talking about when the rookie would come in. You don't pass on a present franchise QB and hope you can find one next year. Draft strengths and weaknesses can change in a year coupled with teams changing positions. The team's #1 pick we get could finish 25th next year.

We've already tied up a ton of money in the QB position all of Peyton's career. We are a QB centered franchise and have been.Yes we have and we've had the greatest quarterback to play the game and one ring to show for it. To continue down the same path, one could argue would be foolish. I don't see an overall change to the structure and we would be lucky to match the success over the past 13 years.

No we have had a structure change. Irsay has realized that in the next era, if you have a great franchise QB, you keep the team more balanced so that multiple championships can be won. Its a balanced TEAM that wins the Super Bowl. Not a real strong defensive team nor a real strong offensive team really wins it anymore. Great teams today have a good balance with a franchise QB. That's what I believe he sees with Luck coming in for the long-term. Too many years went by that we coulda won a championship had we have had a more balanced team.

[mmcrazylikeafox]

I have to disagree. Irsay is a very intelligent individual...he knew what he was getting into with the Manning contract (he played a major role in getting it done), has to have been thinking about what to do with that number #1 pick and the option bonus since about week 8. To say that he was just saying that he will keep PM and draft AL without completely realizing the implications of the decision is crazy. I mean, if we have all sat around for months discussing the cap implications of this decision, why in the world would you think Irsay hadn't?

Now granted, the emotional side may have shifted a little away from PM over the last few weeks, but Irsay has been consistent with the Colts will draft a QB and PM will be a Colt if healthy. I think the definition of "healthy" is where the keeping PM issue is murky.

I agree and also think that PM holds himself to a higher standard than anyone else on his performance as well as his health seeing it directly affects his performance.

[bavanlan]

Familiarity, a system already in place created for and partially by him, 9 playoff appearances in a row, a solid core of Super Bowl vets that have been through what he has been through, an upcoming great draft position, a really good contract, indoor games half the season......should I continue?

New OC, new HC = big changes on offense. The offense Manning would come back to would be drastically different.

9 Playoff appearances in a row were in the past, which means nothing as to why he would come back for the future.

Those "Super Bowl vets" would include 8 likely starters out of 22, and 3 of 11 starters from 2009.

The "great draft position", if you include Luck/RG3 as the #1 OVR pick sitting on the bench, is effectively worth less than any other team's draft because our best pick with a chance to play is the #34OVR pick (and so on). It's a great pick for the team in future years, but means NOTHING to Manning.

I can agree with the great contract and indoor games, though I don't think outdoor games bother Manning as much as people make them out to.

..........they were in the playoffs the last time he played, despite having half the squad on IR, and in the Super Bowl the year before. Contrary to the ^cowpatties^, the Colts are still a serious contender with Manning.

Most of those players have moved on and you've filled it with young, inexperience players who were effectively worthless last year.

Your arguments for Manning returning, as far as I can agree with, are effectively 1) he gets paid well and 2) he can play indoors in good weather for half his games. That's not a compelling reason for a guy who wants to win championships; he can get that from better teams.

[mmcrazylikeafox]

How? If Manning is healthy and is able to play (disregarding the possiblity they could restructure his deal) and he is paid the 28 million, how does it make zero business sense? IF anything its the smartest thing to do ontop of drafting Luck. You are insuring your business can have the next 10-15 years of success with a very minimal building phase (Manning being there for 2-3 years while Luck learns insures the team has moderate/good success till that time comes for Luck to take over). Manning being on the roster with Luck this year coming year will be essentially the same thing as last year with Painter/Collins and Orlovsky on the roster. Collins was paid nearly 4 mill to ride the bench in the same way Luck would this year. Only difference is Luck is an investment coupled with an insurance policy while Collins was in essence a crappy savings account that yielded .1% interest.

An unhealthy Manning is better than Painter/Orlovsky/Collins put together and Luck only makes things better.

[mmcrazylikeafox]

Also, if you believe Manning can play another 5 years at a high level you are mistaken. 3 tops.

I think 2 or 3 years tops then make him QB coach or OC if he will and start playing Luck in preseason season games at the end of the 3rd and in the 4th quarters during those years or more when/if we have a significant lead.

[Restored]

http://blogs.nfl.com...?module=HP11_cp

Watch the video and you will see that Heath Evans is dead on I think.

[mmcrazylikeafox]

Yep. You are right. It's only the media that have turned this into a 'story'. Your Manning bias is clouding your judgement. Now ain't that cute....

The fact that it is Manning in this position and not yourself makes it hardly fair of you to judge unless you walk in his shoes. Now I bet the situation wouldn't be so cute if it was your job/income in question.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Ah I see where you are coming from now. I mean it looks like the most logical thing to do at this point would be to "release" Peyton and just re-sign him to an entirely new deal.

Comparing paying 28 million vs. a release & sign of course it would be more beneficial for the Colts, but I doubt Manning wants any part of Andrew Luck. I wouldn't. You do know that if Manning were to return and start game 1, and in the first drive he threw an interception, that you would have a band of ^fool^s screaming for Luck to come in and replace him.

You are going back to questioning intent again when that cannot be judged. No one knows if Peyton wouldnt mind coexisting with Luck. He's said he's fine with it before. This isn't some QB controversey. Luck and every other person in America knows that it's Peyton's team and will continue to be so.

Then it is safe to say I don't believe either one of them. I won't go as far as to call either one of them a liar, but in my opinion I find it hard to believe that either feel the best case scenario is for them to be teammates.

What I meant by years 4-5 is that in years 4 and 5 of the current contract, they are more of option years. I'm not sure what exactly "option" means by thats what I remember Polian saying when they were announcing the deal. Getting a new deal for Peyton is more than likely the best case scenario at this point.Even then, the cap have to go up quite a bit to be able to absorb the cap ramifications. I just saw where Chappell has an article coming out saying Manning can be a Colt if he wants to reduce his cap # or something like that, which will only insult him. Peyton has called it a one year contract with a 4 year option.

I really don't see it being an insult to him. If anything, he's jus telling Peyton "Look, I know you probably can still play at a high level if you come back, we just have to give you the money in a more spread out fashion. If you come back and play good for the next 2-3 years, you get paid as such for those years.

That would have to be put in contract form and agreed up by both sides. I think Irsay's hypocritical actions aren't doing him any favors with Manning.

I do too but what I'm saying is its kinda pointless to figure considering adding/remove player X could throw off the whole cap equation. ie. you trade Freeney and keep Brackett or you keep Freeney and release Brackett. Couple those two possible choices with the many other possible choices and you are looking at a ton of numbers that could easily change off of one player staying/traded/released.That is one reason I haven't worked out the numbers for the whole team because too many variables come in to play with like you said 93 vs. 58, or 58 vs. 44. It's easy to say what would happen with Brackett or Clark individually, but it's almost impossible to do so with the whole roster.

Agreed.

I mean honestly, what you would want to do and what Luck wants to do are two different things. Yes Luck is being politically correct but you can't judge intent. All you have is his word and if thats what he says then thats all you have to go by in terms of substance. If I were Luck I'd be fine with sitting for 2-3 years considering its the NFL and I'd realize that getting thrown right into the fire sometimes isn't the best idea when you have the option to sit and learn from an outside perspective behind the best of all time.

They might be different and they might be dead on. I wouldn't want to go where to sit for any amount of time. Say Luck sits for 2-3 years. Then plays for 10, and has a similar injury to Peyton. That's 2-3 years of playing he won't get back. Like others have said NFL stands for not for long and while he can be paid for those 2-3 years there is nothing in my mind that would say he would honestly be okay for sitting for that long. Top of the line Quarterbacks aren't okay with things like that. Sorgi or Painter, different story. Yes there are benefits of sitting and learning behind Manning, but I doubt they outweigh the learning he would do by playing & doing.

Who's to say he wouldn't take these 2-3 years as "Grad School"? He's coming into a unique position that not many new QB's coming out of college get the chance to be in. What defines "Top of the line Quarterbacks"? Do all of them have to have huge ego's to think they are the best and should start right away no matter what? Humbleness seems to define Luck better than egotistical at this point. How do you know they don't outweigh? I see quite a few QB's that have sat for some time and eventually had good success after:

A. Aaron Rodgers *Prime Example*

B. Carson Palmer *Sat 1 year behind Jon Kitna*

C. Phillip Rivers *Sat 1 year behind Drew Brees*

Rivers' sat 2 years, but that is beside the point. It's not about ego as much as it is about the desire to play. I'm sure each of those guys would say they learned a lot by sitting. There are pros to it. There are cons to it. I do know that Eli Manning has said he learned far more in the 7 games he started than he did in the 9 games he sat to start his career. I guess it's only my opinion but I don't see Luck wanting to lose a year of playing time. I doubt Rodgers liked the 3 years he rode the pine but he made the most of it, just as the others have. If Harbaugh had remained a Colt maybe Peyton balks at coming here. If for some unforeseeable situations occurs where Manning remains I would not be surprised at all to see Luck pull an Eli/Elway and request a trade.

I don't see how getting a top flight reciever and a O Linemen is more advantageous than drafting a franchise QB. Please refer to the Miami Dolphins.

That would be be based on the assumption of those picks being used for those positions, which was only referenced by the 2 players taken last year and in no way should have been taken as a suggestion for the Colts. So the Dolphins reference is a bit moot.

No no, your missing the point here. I'm saying that 2 picks or however many extra picks you get from trading for Luck isn't worth it. Passing on a potential franchise QB especially in our situation isn't worth it. You have to take him.

I'm not missing the point at all. He won't be the last franchise QB. If Manning is healthy we have another option. If he's not then our options are limited. It obviously worked out in Green Bay, but who is to say that Favre wouldn't have won another Super Bowl if they would have drafted a player that could have helped the team as opposed to a back up. Maybe Favre play in GB up until 2009. They could have addressed the QB position at that point either via free agency, trade, draft, etc. It's all hindsight at this point so it's somewhat pointless, but the same scouts saying Luck is going to be all-world were the same ones ranting and raving about JaMarcus Russell,and the ones undermining Cam Newton.

You are saying that in essence you'd expect these additional players to be immediate impact players which in all likelyhood, they wouldn't be. I'm sure they'd contribute, but how much is difficult to scale.

I'm that the players would contribute to the team before a backup QB unless QB1 goes does. Same goes for the likely extra # 1 next year. I wouldn't trade it for any package, but for the right package, I'd sign off on it assuming Manning is healthy and under contract by draft day.

So your saying that a player drafted next year would have an impact in Manning's era? Manning would already be in the 2nd of the 3 years we are talking about when the rookie would come in. You don't pass on a present franchise QB and hope you can find one next year. Draft strengths and weaknesses can change in a year coupled with teams changing positions. The team's #1 pick we get could finish 25th next year.

They very well could. It would depend on the position, but anything is possible. Maybe we take a RB with one of the extra first round picks we would have received. That low of a pick would be dependent on Luck leading that team to the playoffs. A pretty high assumption. It might not be top, 5, but it would likely be top 15. So yes a player drafted next year or even the year after that could easily have an impact in Manning's final years.

We've already tied up a ton of money in the QB position all of Peyton's career. We are a QB centered franchise and have been.Yes we have and we've had the greatest quarterback to play the game and one ring to show for it. To continue down the same path, one could argue would be foolish. I don't see an overall change to the structure and we would be lucky to match the success over the past 13 years.

No we have had a structure change. Irsay has realized that in the next era, if you have a great franchise QB, you keep the team more balanced so that multiple championships can be won. Its a balanced TEAM that wins the Super Bowl. Not a real strong defensive team nor a real strong offensive team really wins it anymore. Great teams today have a good balance with a franchise QB. That's what I believe he sees with Luck coming in for the long-term. Too many years went by that we coulda won a championship had we have had a more balanced team.

Time will tell if we have had a structure change. I'm not buying it because Luck will be earning top dollar QB money in a matter of years. Manning's dead cap hit this year will prevent any major restructuring. Other players that have high dollar amount tied up will do the same unless they treat 2012 as a true throw away year and try to use it to clear cap for the future. If we would have hired a WCO OC, then I could see some change structurally. Arians will likely employee an offense that will have some of the same concepts the Manning offense does, and unless the HC really limits his control, then I see it being very pass happy and QB dependent and we will be in the same situation. One play away from QB2 playing in a system that is hard to master minus reps. With a WCO offense that would be much easier for a QB2 to come in and keep the team moving forward, Kolb in Philly(not AZ), was an example of this, Flynn in GB, Leinart/Rookie QB 3 in Houston. it's a solid QB Friendly offense. I doubt we end up with that, and I doubt in 7 years the structure of this team will be much different than now. Just different faces, and we can only hope for similar results.

[mmcrazylikeafox]

dont take what im going to say as an insult because its not....and not that i dont agree with you, but neither one of them had an injury like peyton either. and if they did i bet they would have been cut too. not to mention back then unitas wasnt making 90 million dollars in a 5 year contract

.

and peyton more then likely wont agree to an extension because if they extend the deadline then that leaves the colts wide open to try to trade him, or just cut him outright and get nothing in return. and i highly doubt he will take a 1 or 2 year contract from the COLTS with incentives, not when he can have his option picked up by the team and get payed twice as much with out incentives. its just not likely. yeah he said he would but it wasnt directed at the colts it was directed at every team in general and thats to protect that team from making a mistake. sorry but im already prepared for a non manning colts team. i seen it coming when they said he signed a contract with a roster option of 28 million that could be picked up in march.

as far as reporters go they dont know what their talking about and until i hear manning and irsay say otherwise i dont believe in anything writers put. i could easily write a story and say Adam V. saw him practicing yesterday and he was throwin 60 yard passes with zip on it across his body. just to try to stir up fans. or say Manning wants to join the Ravens for a chance to win a superbowl.

and sorry to say but i dont think the colts have any better of a chance to win with manning then they do with out manning. there is just to many holes on the team including the offensive line. the defense was horrible last year, even if manning was playing this past season, i doubt they would have made it to the super bowl. not with that defense, its just my opinion. again im not saying i dont agree with what your saying, id love to see manning back but its time to move on with out him. im a fan of the colts first and a fan of manning second

I can't separate the two because PM is a Colt.

[mmcrazylikeafox]

exactly and with irsay already stating with out a doubt that he is taking a QB with the first pick so that goes to say that if manning dont want to have a QB drafted oh well suck it up or their going to cut him anyway....

people fail to realize this team was built around manning. it wasnt built for life with out manning as we have seen the previous season. and us fans have polian to thank on that part. thats why its better to just let him go or get him to agree to extend the deadline to work out a trade possibility to a team of his choice.

there is no reason for him to stay at all. even with him the colts wont win a superbowl with him. the defense is horrible there is to many holes on that team that need to be addressed before they make another run for one. and keeping him kills all hopes in signing a free agent to fill one of those needs.

Actually the Colts did win a SB with the worst D in the league during the regular season.

[funktacious2]

I wouldn't say I'm sick.

I'm annoyed about insiders, analysts and journalists are stating so confidently, what is about to happen with PM.

I can agree with the overly confident statements from analysts and journalists are a bit on the annoying side. Jason La Canfora was just weeks ago claiming he had "inside sources" that the decision was already made to cut Peyton Manning. And now here we are Feb 14th and Jim Irsay says himself he wants Peyton back (but under a new contract). Doesn't sound exactly like cutting to me. And what does La Confora have to say about his claims? Nothing, instead he's now taking the stance that Peyton won't agree to restructure his contract (which may be true), and doesn't mention at all that he was certain Peyton was going to be cut/released... >_< Typical media, I know, but this is outrageous.

[mmcrazylikeafox]

If the entire media was saying "Manning will be a Colt" without any reliable sources or anything said from Irsay and Manning then no one would be complaining. Think about it. It's only because there is a real good chance he will be cut that the media is now deemed evil, unreliable etc.

I believe it's because most of the media is making some pretty derogatory, harsh and unfounded remarks about Peyton on a more personal level not professionally and some fans are believing it to be gospel truth. PM has always been honorable and shown considerable integrity.

[betheafan41]

Actually the Colts did win a SB with the worst D in the league during the regular season.

well as we have seen though come playoffs it tends to turn teams around patriots did it this year, worst defense in the league well actually 31st ranked defense but played like they were a top 10 defense. Giants barely made it in both times they won the superbowl and ran the tables. but yeah i agree they did turn it up the year they won the superbowl. but they were also about 5 years younger. idk unless manning will agree to restructure that contract he will either be cut or agree to a new contract....because the rate his contract is now

2012- 6.6 million cap hit

2013- 18 million cap hit

2014- 19 million cap hit

2015 - 20 million cap hit

its jumping close to 12 million after 2012 that will hurt when it comes down to the end of his contract adn that is IF he dont call it quits after 2012 (thats saying if the colts draft luck first)

[Restored]

Ah I see where you are coming from now. I mean it looks like the most logical thing to do at this point would be to "release" Peyton and just re-sign him to an entirely new deal.

Comparing paying 28 million vs. a release & sign of course it would be more beneficial for the Colts, but I doubt Manning wants any part of Andrew Luck. I wouldn't. You do know that if Manning were to return and start game 1, and in the first drive he threw an interception, that you would have a band of ^fool^s screaming for Luck to come in and replace him.

You are going back to questioning intent again when that cannot be judged. No one knows if Peyton wouldnt mind coexisting with Luck. He's said he's fine with it before. This isn't some QB controversey. Luck and every other person in America knows that it's Peyton's team and will continue to be so.

Then it is safe to say I don't believe either one of them. I won't go as far as to call either one of them a liar, but in my opinion I find it hard to believe that either feel the best case scenario is for them to be teammates.

Your call here. If you don't believe either of them on their word than I don't know what else to say here.

What I meant by years 4-5 is that in years 4 and 5 of the current contract, they are more of option years. I'm not sure what exactly "option" means by thats what I remember Polian saying when they were announcing the deal. Getting a new deal for Peyton is more than likely the best case scenario at this point.Even then, the cap have to go up quite a bit to be able to absorb the cap ramifications. I just saw where Chappell has an article coming out saying Manning can be a Colt if he wants to reduce his cap # or something like that, which will only insult him. Peyton has called it a one year contract with a 4 year option.

I really don't see it being an insult to him. If anything, he's jus telling Peyton "Look, I know you probably can still play at a high level if you come back, we just have to give you the money in a more spread out fashion. If you come back and play good for the next 2-3 years, you get paid as such for those years.

That would have to be put in contract form and agreed up by both sides. I think Irsay's hypocritical actions aren't doing him any favors with Manning.

Don't see where he's been hypocritical at all in this situation. Please Clarify.

I do too but what I'm saying is its kinda pointless to figure considering adding/remove player X could throw off the whole cap equation. ie. you trade Freeney and keep Brackett or you keep Freeney and release Brackett. Couple those two possible choices with the many other possible choices and you are looking at a ton of numbers that could easily change off of one player staying/traded/released.That is one reason I haven't worked out the numbers for the whole team because too many variables come in to play with like you said 93 vs. 58, or 58 vs. 44. It's easy to say what would happen with Brackett or Clark individually, but it's almost impossible to do so with the whole roster.

Agreed.

I mean honestly, what you would want to do and what Luck wants to do are two different things. Yes Luck is being politically correct but you can't judge intent. All you have is his word and if thats what he says then thats all you have to go by in terms of substance. If I were Luck I'd be fine with sitting for 2-3 years considering its the NFL and I'd realize that getting thrown right into the fire sometimes isn't the best idea when you have the option to sit and learn from an outside perspective behind the best of all time.

They might be different and they might be dead on. I wouldn't want to go where to sit for any amount of time. Say Luck sits for 2-3 years. Then plays for 10, and has a similar injury to Peyton. That's 2-3 years of playing he won't get back. Like others have said NFL stands for not for long and while he can be paid for those 2-3 years there is nothing in my mind that would say he would honestly be okay for sitting for that long. Top of the line Quarterbacks aren't okay with things like that. Sorgi or Painter, different story. Yes there are benefits of sitting and learning behind Manning, but I doubt they outweigh the learning he would do by playing & doing.

Who's to say he wouldn't take these 2-3 years as "Grad School"? He's coming into a unique position that not many new QB's coming out of college get the chance to be in. What defines "Top of the line Quarterbacks"? Do all of them have to have huge ego's to think they are the best and should start right away no matter what? Humbleness seems to define Luck better than egotistical at this point. How do you know they don't outweigh? I see quite a few QB's that have sat for some time and eventually had good success after:

A. Aaron Rodgers*Prime Example*

B.Carson Palmer *Sat 1 year behind Jon Kitna*

C. Phillip Rivers *Sat 1 year behind Drew Brees*

Rivers' sat 2 years, but that is beside the point. It's not about ego as much as it is about the desire to play. I'm sure each of those guys would say they learned a lot by sitting. There are pros to it. There are cons to it. I do know that Eli Manning has said he learned far more in the 7 games he started than he did in the 9 games he sat to start his career. I guess it's only my opinion but I don't see Luck wanting to lose a year of playing time. I doubt Rodgers liked the 3 years he rode the pine but he made the most of it, just as the others have. If Harbaugh had remained a Colt maybe Peyton balks at coming here. If for some unforeseeable situations occurs where Manning remains I would not be surprised at all to see Luck pull an Eli/Elway and request a trade.

Look every player desires to play. Thats what drives them all to play the the game in the first place. However, wanting to play and understanding where you are in terms of a career is a little different. Steve Young waited his turn to achieve greatness so has Rodgers. As I said before, Luck would "totally embrace" learning from Peyton. His words not mine. He won't request a trade I'll bet cold hard cash.

I don't see how getting a top flight reciever and a O Linemen is more advantageous than drafting a franchise QB. Please refer to the Miami Dolphins.

That would be be based on the assumption of those picks being used for those positions, which was only referenced by the 2 players taken last year and in no way should have been taken as a suggestion for the Colts. So the Dolphins reference is a bit moot.

No no, your missing the point here. I'm saying that 2 picks or however many extra picks you get from trading for Luck isn't worth it. Passing on a potential franchise QB especially in our situation isn't worth it. You have to take him.

I'm not missing the point at all. He won't be the last franchise QB. If Manning is healthy we have another option. If he's not then our options are limited. It obviously worked out in Green Bay, but who is to say that Favre wouldn't have won another Super Bowl if they would have drafted a player that could have helped the team as opposed to a back up. Maybe Favre play in GB up until 2009. They could have addressed the QB position at that point either via free agency, trade, draft, etc. It's all hindsight at this point so it's somewhat pointless, but the same scouts saying Luck is going to be all-world were the same ones ranting and raving about JaMarcus Russell,and the ones undermining Cam Newton.

No he won't be the last franchise QB but we also might not have another chance to get a QB of this nature in the forseable future. What if Green Bay didn't take Rodgers and ended up falling to obscurity when Favre decided to leave? A limited number of scouts ranted and raved about JaMarcus and trashed Cam. Most and I mean MOST experts are unified in their assesment of Luck.

You are saying that in essence you'd expect these additional players to be immediate impact players which in all likelyhood, they wouldn't be. I'm sure they'd contribute, but how much is difficult to scale.

I'm that the players would contribute to the team before a backup QB unless QB1 goes does. Same goes for the likely extra # 1 next year. I wouldn't trade it for any package, but for the right package, I'd sign off on it assuming Manning is healthy and under contract by draft day.

So your saying that a player drafted next year would have an impact in Manning's era? Manning would already be in the 2nd of the 3 years we are talking about when the rookie would come in. You don't pass on a present franchise QB and hope you can find one next year. Draft strengths and weaknesses can change in a year coupled with teams changing positions. The team's #1 pick we get could finish 25th next year.

They very well could. It would depend on the position, but anything is possible. Maybe we take a RB with one of the extra first round picks we would have received. That low of a pick would be dependent on Luck leading that team to the playoffs. A pretty high assumption. It might not be top, 5, but it would likely be top 15. So yes a player drafted next year or even the year after that could easily have an impact in Manning's final years.

I'm not buying the extra picks arguement. You have just as much of a chance of getting a non-contributor as a contributor. The Patriots have gotten extra picks and haven't really benefited from it I think. Yes they were in the Super Bowl this year but they really weren't as good as they seemed. They were bad defensively and had no vertical passing attack. Yet they've had extra picks over the past couple of years.

We've already tied up a ton of money in the QB position all of Peyton's career. We are a QB centered franchise and have been.Yes we have and we've had the greatest quarterback to play the game and one ring to show for it. To continue down the same path, one could argue would be foolish. I don't see an overall change to the structure and we would be lucky to match the success over the past 13 years.

No we have had a structure change. Irsay has realized that in the next era, if you have a great franchise QB, you keep the team more balanced so that multiple championships can be won. Its a balanced TEAM that wins the Super Bowl. Not a real strong defensive team nor a real strong offensive team really wins it anymore. Great teams today have a good balance with a franchise QB. That's what I believe he sees with Luck coming in for the long-term. Too many years went by that we coulda won a championship had we have had a more balanced team.

Time will tell if we have had a structure change. I'm not buying it because Luck will be earning top dollar QB money in a matter of years. Manning's dead cap hit this year will prevent any major restructuring. Other players that have high dollar amount tied up will do the same unless they treat 2012 as a true throw away year and try to use it to clear cap for the future. If we would have hired a WCO OC, then I could see some change structurally. Arians will likely employee an offense that will have some of the same concepts the Manning offense does, and unless the HC really limits his control, then I see it being very pass happy and QB dependent and we will be in the same situation. One play away from QB2 playing in a system that is hard to master minus reps. With a WCO offense that would be much easier for a QB2 to come in and keep the team moving forward, Kolb in Philly(not AZ), was an example of this, Flynn in GB, Leinart/Rookie QB 3 in Houston. it's a solid QB Friendly offense. I doubt we end up with that, and I doubt in 7 years the structure of this team will be much different than now. Just different faces, and we can only hope for similar results.

You seem clueless as to how the league is becoming. The league is becoming pass happy and QB dependent. That's why you saw six of the game's great QB's in the Super Bowl these past 3 years. You don't see Joe Flacco or Jay Cutler playing in Super Bowls. Luck has already been "bred" to jump into a system like ours and run it in similar fashion that Peyton has. Yes it will take time for Luck to learn the whole system and to run in any sort of similar fashion to Peyton, but Peyton too had to learn and master the offense. Arians will teach him well. I also didn't mean a total structure change. Keep the same offensive mindset with being QB and vertical passing game oriented while having a stronger defense that can dictate instead of just merely trying to protect a lead. Balance is the key.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Your call here. If you don't believe either of them on their word than I don't know what else to say here.

I see them being more PC than brutally honest. Deep down, they know they each want to play, and would be better suited being QB1 with the other elsewhere. I can’t see it any other way.

Don't see where he's been hypocritical at all in this situation. Please Clarify.

Blasting Manning for not keeping his concerns “In House”, yet throwing jabs left and right like today. It is nothing but hypocritical.

Look every player desires to play. Thats what drives them all to play the the game in the first place. However, wanting to play and understanding where you are in terms of a career is a little different. Steve Young waited his turn to achieve greatness so has Rodgers. As I said before, Luck would "totally embrace" learning from Peyton. His words not mine. He won't request a trade I'll bet cold hard cash.

Some have waited their turn and acted professionally in the process kudos to them. Again, there are pros to learning from the GOAT. I doubt there will be an opportunity for an official bet.

No he won't be the last franchise QB but we also might not have another chance to get a QB of this nature in the forseable future. What if Green Bay didn't take Rodgers and ended up falling to obscurity when Favre decided to leave? A limited number of scouts ranted and raved about JaMarcus and trashed Cam. Most and I mean MOST experts are unified in their assesment of Luck.

That’s the beauty of hindsight. That is all we have in the end. Green Bay was lucky that Rodgers fell to them, and everything worked out. I remember Jeff George getting the Elway treatment as well. Time will tell.

I'm not buying the extra picks arguement. You have just as much of a chance of getting a non-contributor as a contributor. The Patriots have gotten extra picks and haven't really benefited from it I think. Yes they were in the Super Bowl this year but they really weren't as good as they seemed. They were bad defensively and had no vertical passing attack. Yet they've had extra picks over the past couple of years.

You still have to make a solid selection. I guess Luck has much of a chance to bust as he does to become all world on that notion then right? Some see him as better than Manning, I’m not buying that. I see more of a Drew Bledsoe with mobility.

The Patriots aren’t the best example, they keep parlaying those extra picks into the next year for the most part, so it’s not like their results are set in stone since they have 2 # 1’s again this year.

You seem clueless as to how the league is becoming. The league is becoming pass happy and QB dependent. That's why you saw six of the game's great QB's in the Super Bowl these past 3 years. You don't see Joe Flacco or Jay Cutler playing in Super Bowls. Luck has already been "bred" to jump into a system like ours and run it in similar fashion that Peyton has. Yes it will take time for Luck to learn the whole system and to run in any sort of similar fashion to Peyton, but Peyton too had to learn and master the offense. Arians will teach him well. I also didn't mean a total structure change. Keep the same offensive mindset with being QB and vertical passing game oriented while having a stronger defense that can dictate instead of just merely trying to protect a lead. Balance is the key.

Far from it, but nice failed attempt at an insult. Luck has been in a West Coast Offense that doesn’t resemble what we run at all. Which is one reason I wanted a WCO OC brought in after we hired the defensive minded HC to make his transition smoother. He would have faced far less bumps if we were running a WCO. What we needed was a total structure change to where we were still dependent on the QB, but in a more efficient system such as the WCO, as opposed to any variation of the Manning offense because it takes quite a while to be efficient in it. Balance is the key and our finances will prevent that balance early on. We might have a year or so to truly attempt to address being balanced before Luck is Mr. 15-18 million.