What's The Real Arguement Against Pey-Luck?

[JoKeR]

No. he didnt tell me. He and I havent talked..recently

But....I believe he banked $26 mil last year..That's what Mr. Irsay said.

He has structured his deals in the past so his teammates could get paid.

That's public knowledge..Irsay has said that..

..and he wants to finish his career in Indy. He has said that.

....I'm going by what they have said...Its all you can do.

You either accept it or you feel they're lying to you.

You are right, schwammy....I want to accept what they are saying.

Yes I'd rather listen to them , not some "insider" with mysterious sources and no credibility.

[WSO]

You do know Peyton's last contract was bigger? So it has been done.

What exactly does Mannings last contract have to do with using a #1 overall pick on a guy to have him sit through his entire first contract?

[WSO]

Of course not, I say we draft Carson Wiggs (Kicker out of Purdue) in the first round. I also think we shouldn't sign Manning or even think about trading Luck. Dude we have Curtis Painter! He's the best. His 66 passer rating speaks for itself. I say we draft Carson in the first and, then maybe draft a special teams specialist in that 2nd and use him sparingly. Trade the rest of our picks for undrafted free agents if it's possible. Perhaps we could also get Bo Jackson to come back!!! Epic, if we do all that we are instant super bowl competitors.

I have a guy right now convincing me that the Colts should keep Manning under his current contract, then draft Luck, make him sit behind Manning until his contract expires, then franchise him when it expires.

[Fx Stryker]

What exactly does Mannings last contract have to do with using a #1 overall pick on a guy to have him sit through his entire first contract?

Might want to differentiate who you are talking about next time. Since there are two individuals involved.

[WSO]

Might want to differentiate who you are talking about next time. Since there are two individuals involved.

considering I said this

I was just pointing out the hilarity of keeping a QB under contract that long for that much money.

and hadn't mentioned Manning prior to that post

it really does not take a lot of reading comprehension to see who I am talking about

[Fx Stryker]

considering I said this

and hadn't mentioned Manning prior to that post

it really does not take a lot of reading comprehension to see who I am talking about

Well seeing a lot of pro Luck supporters main argument is against Manning's contract it is an easy mix up.

Back to your point, so no other player sat with a cap hit of $5ish million on a team? Ever? Or is it just because a number 1 pick has sat before? That doesn't make his $5 million worth anything more than another players.

[WSO]

Well seeing a lot of pro Luck supporters main argument is against Manning's contract it is an easy mix up.

Back to your point, so no other player sat with a cap hit of $5ish million on a team? Ever? Or is it just because a number 1 pick has sat before? That doesn't make his $5 million worth anything more than another players.

No player who has been taken #1 overall sat through their entire contract period. It would be a huge waste of money. 1st round picks in general are ready to go from the get go. They aren't backup material that sit the bench until someone else gets injured or retired. There are rare occurences such as Aaron Rodgers who sat behind Favre for 3 years. Rodgers made about 7mill over his 5 year contract. That is a fraction of Lucks 4 year 22m+ contract. Rodgers definitely did not have a cap hit of 5m per year.

There is a reason it has not been done before. 1) It is a waste of talent 2) it is a waste of money 3)it is a waste of a draft pick.

I don't know why I'm even arguing this point but there is no way in heck Luck will sit for 4 years behind Manning.

All you are doing is asking blatant questions that can be easily answered instead of showing me a such occurence that has happened or make a good argument as to why.

[JoKeR]

I have a guy right now convincing me that the Colts should keep Manning under his current contract, then draft Luck, make him sit behind Manning until his contract expires, then franchise him when it expires.

"Make it so" lol

[subvet]

I don't know why I'm even arguing this point but there is no way in heck Luck will sit for 4 years behind Manning.

But he might sit for a year if he is as smart as they say. Start the next year with everyone behind him and always be remembered as the man that let the great one go out gracefully. The hearts of Hoosiers and Colts fans would be his for the taking.

[Fx Stryker]

No player who has been taken #1 overall sat through their entire contract period. It would be a huge waste of money. 1st round picks in general are ready to go from the get go. They aren't backup material that sit the bench until someone else gets injured or retired. There are rare occurences such as Aaron Rodgers who sat behind Favre for 3 years. Rodgers made about 7mill over his 5 year contract. That is a fraction of Lucks 4 year 22m+ contract. Rodgers definitely did not have a cap hit of 5m per year.

There is a reason it has not been done before. 1) It is a waste of talent 2) it is a waste of money 3)it is a waste of a draft pick.

I don't know why I'm even arguing this point but there is no way in heck Luck will sit for 4 years behind Manning.

All you are doing is asking blatant questions that can be easily answered instead of showing me a such occurence that has happened or make a good argument as to why.

When has a team with a HoF QB ever gotten a chance at the No. 1 pick and a chance to pick the "best prospect" in recent years? Never, so no one can give you an occurrence. If teams ever had this chance, and got rid of there current Qb then you have an actual argument. The absence of a situation ever happening doesn't mean the argument for the pro Luck camp is right. The closest we have to this situation is Montana/Young or Favre/Rodgers. Both worked well for those teams. You can argue it was a waste of both Young's and Rodger's talent. Rodgers or Young could have beat the Giants in their respective games in the NFC Championship game when they both sat on the bench.

[UndecidedFrog]

When has a team with a HoF QB ever gotten a chance at the No. 1 pick and a chance to pick the "best prospect" in recent years?

Typically, drafting rookies is done by the GM and his team. The team QB has no say, and should have no say in that process.

[jvan1973]

Typically, drafting rookies is done by the GM and his team. The team QB has no say, and should have no say in that process.

I think you are missing the point... When was the last time a team had a HoF QB and had the number 1 pick in the draft? Did they use the number 1 pick on a QB?

[UndecidedFrog]

I think you are missing the point... When was the last time a team had a HoF QB and had the number 1 pick in the draft? Did they use the number 1 pick on a QB?

Oh, TY for pointing that out to me. It didn't quite make any sense the other way.

I think it helps that the HOF QB did not play the season to help "achieve" the #1 overall pick.

[jvan1973]

Oh, TY for pointing that out to me. It didn't quite make any sense the other way.

I think it helps that the HOF QB did not play the season to help "achieve" the #1 overall pick.

Yes. i would agree...lol

[BleedingBlue]

No one is sitting 4 years. Oh wait... Curtis Painter did.

[WSO]

When has a team with a HoF QB ever gotten a chance at the No. 1 pick and a chance to pick the "best prospect" in recent years? Never, so no one can give you an occurrence. If teams ever had this chance, and got rid of there current Qb then you have an actual argument. The absence of a situation ever happening doesn't mean the argument for the pro Luck camp is right. The closest we have to this situation is Montana/Young or Favre/Rodgers. Both worked well for those teams. You can argue it was a waste of both Young's and Rodger's talent. Rodgers or Young could have beat the Giants in their respective games in the NFC Championship game when they both sat on the bench.

The reason its never happened is typically because a team with a HOF QB doesn't do terrible to somehow end up with the #1 pick. There has to be a cause and in this case it was an injury. Irsay had made it clear some time ago that they are taking a QB regardless of Manning's health. We dont even know what Mannings health is and he is still taking a QB. I don't see the argument here because if Manning was truly in his HOF form, we would never be choosing #1. There must be a reason and in this case its an injury. What team has had a healthy HOF QB and the #1 pick? None. What team had an injured HOF QB and the #1 pick? The Colts. They are two different scenarios.

I find it incredibly ridiculous to keep Luck on the bench for the entireity of his contract behind Manning. It does not make sense financially to pay some quarterback regardless of draft position, 22M+ over 4 years just to sit on the bench. You just don't pay a backup QB that much. I can see Luck sitting for 1 or 2 at the most but there is no way they will let Luck sit behind Manning until his contract expires.

You don't draft a QB #1 overall to sit the bench for his entire contract. THAT is my point. I am trying to break down this barrier you do not seem to understand. I can understand one or two but your original reply was to let Luck sit for 4 years and then franchise him so he won't escape into free agency.

Luck is not a backup QB. The Colts are not drafting Luck to be a backup for the entirety of his contract. This is the point I am trying to get across. Luck is a starting quarterback and is likely going to be the next franchise QB for the Colts. Not a 22m+ bench warmer. Do you get it yet?

[WSO]

No one is sitting 4 years. Oh wait... Curtis Painter did.

I really hope you are joking right now. . . please tell me you are joking.........

[BleedingBlue]

Oh... I though I smelt a campfire.

Did you...take that the wrong way? lol.

[Coltsagent]

One of the main reasons I want Luck behind Peyton is I believe it will make Luck even better. Which based on the overhype already THAT could be scary good. I believe there was a reason Peyton's contract was so front loaded for 3 years, IMO thats all he planned. He has always said he wanted to play 16 years, last year was year 14.

[Coltsagent]

BTW if you never have seen it, this is a great Peyton Manning interview taken w/ Peyton in June after the 06 SB win. He talks about the 16 years and with one team:

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/man0int-4

[Fx Stryker]

The reason its never happened is typically because a team with a HOF QB doesn't do terrible to somehow end up with the #1 pick. There has to be a cause and in this case it was an injury. Irsay had made it clear some time ago that they are taking a QB regardless of Manning's health. We dont even know what Mannings health is and he is still taking a QB. I don't see the argument here because if Manning was truly in his HOF form, we would never be choosing #1. There must be a reason and in this case its an injury. What team has had a healthy HOF QB and the #1 pick? None. What team had an injured HOF QB and the #1 pick? The Colts. They are two different scenarios.

I find it incredibly ridiculous to keep Luck on the bench for the entireity of his contract behind Manning. It does not make sense financially to pay some quarterback regardless of draft position, 22M+ over 4 years just to sit on the bench. You just don't pay a backup QB that much. I can see Luck sitting for 1 or 2 at the most but there is no way they will let Luck sit behind Manning until his contract expires.

You don't draft a QB #1 overall to sit the bench for his entire contract. THAT is my point. I am trying to break down this barrier you do not seem to understand. I can understand one or two but your original reply was to let Luck sit for 4 years and then franchise him so he won't escape into free agency.

Luck is not a backup QB. The Colts are not drafting Luck to be a backup for the entirety of his contract. This is the point I am trying to get across. Luck is a starting quarterback and is likely going to be the next franchise QB for the Colts. Not a 22m+ bench warmer. Do you get it yet?

If we had an adequate back-up plan we wouldn't have the #1 pick with a HoF QB. Just like when Montana went down in '91 they had Young and Bono. You said it yourself Irsay would take a QB despite the fact of Peyton's status. I think he would have even take a QB in the draft even if Peyton played 2011. Jim and Bill have been looking for a few season now to find a successor. It just so happens we happens to have the number 1 pick. That doesn't change the purpose of our selection. That selection is still here to take over after Manning is done. It may not make sense financially in the short term, but in the era after Manning we don't have to scramble to find a new QB because he is there. That is the reasoning of having someone on the bench for four years.

You are right on the sense Luck isn't a back-up QB, but when the starting QB is Peyton anyone is the back-up.

[subvet]

Luck is not a backup QB. The Colts are not drafting Luck to be a backup for the entirety of his contract. This is the point I am trying to get across. Luck is a starting quarterback and is likely going to be the next franchise QB for the Colts. Not a 22m+ bench warmer. Do you get it yet?

Hey now, enhance your mellow, nobody knows what is going to happen yet. Even Rob Lowe is keeping quiet.

[WSO]

If we had an adequate back-up plan we wouldn't have the #1 pick with a HoF QB. Just like when Montana went down in '91 they had Young and Bono. You said it yourself Irsay would take a QB despite the fact of Peyton's status. I think he would have even take a QB in the draft even if Peyton played 2011. Jim and Bill have been looking for a few season now to find a successor. It just so happens we happens to have the number 1 pick. That doesn't change the purpose of our selection. That selection is still here to take over after Manning is done. It may not make sense financially in the short term, but in the era after Manning we don't have to scramble to find a new QB because he is there. That is the reasoning of having someone on the bench for four years.

You are right on the sense Luck isn't a back-up QB, but when the starting QB is Peyton anyone is the back-up.

We aren't even certain Manning is returning. If Irsay was truly committed to Manning for another 4 years, we would not be taking Luck. Irsay likely would want to trade the pick. This ensures Manning is surrounded by a complete team wih more talent. Irsay is not taking Luck to sit behind Manning for 4 years. If we really needed a successor, we could draft many other well rated QBs and have them learn behind Manning such as Foles, Moore, or even the best case scenario to keep manning and a backup would be to trade down, acquire picks, and still get a good prospect.

You still have not explained to me the logical reasoning as to why the Colts should take a QB #1 overall just to let him sit until his contract expires and then franchise him or offer a new contract. If anyone can be a backup to Manning then why are the Colts possibly taking the best prospect to sit for 4 years instead of a lesser yet good prospect to sit for 4 years? Surely the latter option means they'd get a decent QB + picks? It does not add up and does not make sense. I do not understand logically why the Colts would ever draft luck just to let him sit until his contract is up. Even the best QBs don't have 22mill bench warmers.

[Fx Stryker]

BTW if you never have seen it, this is a great Peyton Manning interview taken w/ Peyton in June after the 06 SB win. He talks about the 16 years and with one team:

http://www.achieveme.../page/man0int-4

Wow, thanks for that. Great interview.

"Are you the right kind of guy? Do you have the right things inside of you? Do you love the game? Like I said, would you play for free in the NFL? Obviously, I wouldn't tell my owner that, but I would."

That's on the first page.

[WSO]

Hey now, enhance your mellow, nobody knows what is going to happen yet. Even Rob Lowe is keeping quiet.

Hence why I said 'likely' but I'll assure you Luck is not sitting on the bench for four years.

[Fx Stryker]

We aren't even certain Manning is returning. If Irsay was truly committed to Manning for another 4 years, we would not be taking Luck. Irsay likely would want to trade the pick. This ensures Manning is surrounded by a complete team wih more talent. Irsay is not taking Luck to sit behind Manning for 4 years. If we really needed a successor, we could draft many other well rated QBs and have them learn behind Manning such as Foles, Moore, or even the best case scenario to keep manning and a backup would be to trade down, acquire picks, and still get a good prospect.

You still have not explained to me the logical reasoning as to why the Colts should take a QB #1 overall just to let him sit until his contract expires and then franchise him or offer a new contract. If anyone can be a backup to Manning then why are the Colts possibly taking the best prospect to sit for 4 years instead of a lesser yet good prospect to sit for 4 years? Surely the latter option means they'd get a decent QB + picks? It does not add up and does not make sense. I do not understand logically why the Colts would ever draft luck just to let him sit until his contract is up. Even the best QBs don't have 22mill bench warmers.

Trading the pick goes against everything the Colts do. Even if that is Polian's ideology Mr. Irsay doesn't know any other way of doing things. Not saying he doesn't have a mind of his own, but that is just the way he does things. What if Irsay is just picking Luck because he is the best player on the board? That is how the Cowboys use to draft in the 70's and 80's. Take the best player on the board even if you don't need him. We could pick a different Qb if we honestly wanted to, but you want the best guy. We all are positive that Luck will turn out great, possibly the next a Brees or Rodgers maybe better. Which I hope he does. Taking a guy like Tannehill or Weeden they could turn out to be like Romo or Rivers. Great QBs no disrespect to them, but why settle for a Romo or Rivers when you could get a guy like Brees or Rodgers.

You are right on the sense of Luck could be an instant franchise QB, and it doesn't really seem fair to him to sit for a few years. Just because he can do it doesn't mean that is why we are taking him. If we take this situation back a year, but same rules apply. Manning will be 36 entering the 2011 season. Colts have the #1 pick. The new CBA restricts monstrous rookie contracts. I bet you we still take the best player fit for the Colts. We would still take a Locker or Ponder. Push it back to the 2010 draft. I bet we take Bradford. I would even go out on a limb, and say if the Patriots were in this situation Belichick takes Luck to follow Brady.

The explanation is we want to have the best for a continued success. That happens to be Luck. One of the "most NFL ready" quarterbacks. It's a perfect storm for this situation. We got the number #1 pick which happens to be when a phenomenal prospect is coming out. The new CBA restricts rookies from making huge contacts. We aren't breaking our backs cap wise, which would only be about 4.5% of our cap, by paying Andrew like we would by a QB who gets a contract like Bradford did. It is a lot of money, but still not as much as we have paid before.

The Colts just want the best. Manning goes down with a sprained ankle for one week. Do you want a Tannehill/Moore/Foles playing that week? Or do you want Luck playing? Of course you want a Luck type guy. It gives you the best opportunity of winning.

[WSO]

Trading the pick goes against everything the Colts do. Even if that is Polian's ideology Mr. Irsay doesn't know any other way of doing things. Not saying he doesn't have a mind of his own, but that is just the way he does things. What if Irsay is just picking Luck because he is the best player on the board? That is how the Cowboys use to draft in the 70's and 80's. Take the best player on the board even if you don't need him. We could pick a different Qb if we honestly wanted to, but you want the best guy. We all are positive that Luck will turn out great, possibly the next a Brees or Rodgers maybe better. Which I hope he does. Taking a guy like Tannehill or Weeden they could turn out to be like Romo or Rivers. Great QBs no disrespect to them, but why settle for a Romo or Rivers when you could get a guy like Brees or Rodgers.

You are right on the sense of Luck could be an instant franchise QB, and it doesn't really seem fair to him to sit for a few years. Just because he can do it doesn't mean that is why we are taking him. If we take this situation back a year, but same rules apply. Manning will be 36 entering the 2011 season. Colts have the #1 pick. The new CBA restricts monstrous rookie contracts. I bet you we still take the best player fit for the Colts. We would still take a Locker or Ponder. Push it back to the 2010 draft. I bet we take Bradford. I would even go out on a limb, and say if the Patriots were in this situation Belichick takes Luck to follow Brady.

The explanation is we want to have the best for a continued success. That happens to be Luck. One of the "most NFL ready" quarterbacks. It's a perfect storm for this situation. We got the number #1 pick which happens to be when a phenomenal prospect is coming out. The new CBA restricts rookies from making huge contacts. We aren't breaking our backs cap wise, which would only be about 4.5% of our cap, by paying Andrew like we would by a QB who gets a contract like Bradford did. It is a lot of money, but still not as much as we have paid before.

The Colts just want the best. Manning goes down with a sprained ankle for one week. Do you want a Tannehill/Moore/Foles playing that week? Or do you want Luck playing? Of course you want a Luck type guy. It gives you the best opportunity of winning.

Please. . .the 70s and 80s had no salary cap so you could take the best player and still address the holes on the team if you had a lot of $$$$.

I am not against taking Luck as you can see. I am against sitting Luck for 4 years on the bench. I read through your entire post and still didn't get a logical explanation why the Colts should sit Luck for 4 years. I disagree that the Colts would be taking a #1 QB overall last year or two years ago. First off going into the 2011 season Manning would be 35 and in the 2010 season 34. His contract situation would have been much different if he missed one of those seasons as he didn't sign his new contract until after the 2010 season. In your scenario it is like Manning signs his new contract this July while this whole mess is going on. Manning's 28million is a big reason why the Colts are possibly cutting him for Luck. If it was a smaller contract, I'm positive Manning would be back hence why Irsay made the tweet a few weeks ago stating they want Manning back but its up to him (Basically hey we arent paying you 28mill but we want you as a Colt with a new contract).

Also cap wise, it's not just Luck that would be handicapping the Colt, its Luck and Manning together PLUS the amount of free agents we have. Combined they will have a 21Mill cap hit this upcoming season. That normally would not be a problem. Last year Manning had an even higher cap hit and free agency wise the Colts were able to re-sign some of their players. The problem is when you realize the free agents the Colts have and the amount of holes on the team. This goes back to why I said if Irsay was truly committed to Manning, this would be one year where trading the pick would make a lot of sense. Any other year I could see the argument but for Manning, trading the pick this year would be very beneficial. I'm sure he would appreciate having more talent around him rather than talent sitting the bench behind him.

Also your last statement, I've reiterated it a thousand times, Luck is not being drafted to sit the bench incase Manning sprains his ankle. There are plenty of other NFL experienced backup QB's that the Colts could sign if they really thought Manning could go down and at a much cheaper price.

[Kyle]

We aren't even certain Manning is returning.

It is more certain that Manning returns and will go to the probowl the next 3 years than Luck ever making one probowl. IMO

[Superman]

It is more certain that Manning returns and will go to the probowl the next 3 years than Luck ever making one probowl. IMO

= myopia

We don't even know if Manning can throw the ball 50 yards down the field right now. And even if he can, and even if he does go to three straight Pro Bowls, what makes you think that Luck's chances of going to the Pro Bowl are that low? You realize that Derek Anderson has been a Pro Bowler? Matt Cassel? Jeff Garcia went four times. Vince Young went twice.

You're saying it's more likely that Luck is essentially a bust than that Manning can't get back to Pro Bowl level and stay there for three years. I don't think you're being realistic. There is consensus on Andrew Luck like there hasn't been on a quarterback since John Elway. Not even Manning had this kind of consensus. Not Carson Palmer. Not Michael Vick. Not Eli Manning. How many Pro Bowls do those #1 picks have between them?

Luck isn't Jamarcus Russell or David Carr. He's going to be good, barring catastrophic injury. Let's just be real. Whether he becomes really good or even great is in the air, but let's not act like we're taking a flier on a quarterback just because we need one. We're not reaching for an iffy prospect.

[Phil J]

It is more certain that Manning returns and will go to the probowl the next 3 years than Luck ever making one probowl. IMO

yuck. i cant dislike your post enough.

[Fx Stryker]

Please. . .the 70s and 80s had no salary cap so you could take the best player and still address the holes on the team if you had a lot of $$$$.

I am not against taking Luck as you can see. I am against sitting Luck for 4 years on the bench. I read through your entire post and still didn't get a logical explanation why the Colts should sit Luck for 4 years. I disagree that the Colts would be taking a #1 QB overall last year or two years ago. First off going into the 2011 season Manning would be 35 and in the 2010 season 34. His contract situation would have been much different if he missed one of those seasons as he didn't sign his new contract until after the 2010 season. In your scenario it is like Manning signs his new contract this July while this whole mess is going on. Manning's 28million is a big reason why the Colts are possibly cutting him for Luck. If it was a smaller contract, I'm positive Manning would be back hence why Irsay made the tweet a few weeks ago stating they want Manning back but its up to him (Basically hey we arent paying you 28mill but we want you as a Colt with a new contract).

Also cap wise, it's not just Luck that would be handicapping the Colt, its Luck and Manning together PLUS the amount of free agents we have. Combined they will have a 21Mill cap hit this upcoming season. That normally would not be a problem. Last year Manning had an even higher cap hit and free agency wise the Colts were able to re-sign some of their players. The problem is when you realize the free agents the Colts have and the amount of holes on the team. This goes back to why I said if Irsay was truly committed to Manning, this would be one year where trading the pick would make a lot of sense. Any other year I could see the argument but for Manning, trading the pick this year would be very beneficial. I'm sure he would appreciate having more talent around him rather than talent sitting the bench behind him.

Also your last statement, I've reiterated it a thousand times, Luck is not being drafted to sit the bench incase Manning sprains his ankle. There are plenty of other NFL experienced backup QB's that the Colts could sign if they really thought Manning could go down and at a much cheaper price.

You must've not understood when I said all the same scenario applies to us if we had the no. 1 pick in recent drafts. I was saying hypothetically if the top prospect was Bradford, Locker, or Ponder in this draft we would take them.

I am not arguing against you financially Manning taking a smaller contract would help us. Manning also has no problem for little to nil money. He has stated before he would play for free. I'm just using the length of his contract. What if Manning takes a new contract is for the same length just for less money. This is most likely scenario. Irsay doesn't have a problem with the length of the contract just with the amount being paid. We are take Luck because Irsay has said he is. Then what is the purpose of Luck? Start over Peyton Manning?

[WSO]

You must've not understood when I said all the same scenario applies to us if we had the no. 1 pick in recent drafts. I was saying hypothetically if the top prospect was Bradford, Locker, or Ponder in this draft we would take them.

I am not arguing against you financially Manning taking a smaller contract would help us. Manning also has no problem for little to nil money. He has stated before he would play for free. I'm just using the length of his contract. What if Manning takes a new contract is for the same length just for less money. This is most likely scenario. Irsay doesn't have a problem with the length of the contract just with the amount being paid. We are take Luck because Irsay has said he is. Then what is the purpose of Luck? Start over Peyton Manning?

Well if we had the #1 pick in recent drafts you still have to factor in Mannings contract. I dont understand this scenario of just rewinding everything a year.

How do you know the 'most likely' scenario is Manning would take a long term deal worth far less money? I don't see any signs pointing to this. Any long term deal would mean the Colts have Manning dead set as their short term future and would worry about the long term future after he retires. This completely goes against taking Luck as Luck is the long term future(or any QB #1). This is why trading the pick makes more sense if the Colts are commited to Manning for the next 'x' amount of years. Surround him with the best talent the Colts can and get to the Super Bowl.

I have not heard anyone suggest Manning would sign a long term deal for less money. I've heard a 1 or 2 year deal which makes the most sense IF it is an absolute must to have Manning back. This way you get Manning for a year or two, Luck to sit and learn, and Manning's health is not a huge risk. Unfortunately I dont think Manning will settle for a 5mill contract. We're talking Travaris Jackson money.

[BleedingBlue]

Guys, we pretty much all want to draft Andrew Luck so lets relax.

Just as much as you want people to be preparred let go of a 36 year old QB, you must also prepare yourself for the fact that Andrew Luck may not start in the National Football League in 2012. If this is something that rubs you the wrong way (perhaps he is your old roomie from stanford, or your cousin, whateves), then maybe you have an emotional and personal tie to Andrew Luck and need to let that go as well.

See, if Andrew was going to replace Jim Harbaugh...or if he got drafted by teh Browns or the Dolphins, that would be fine to start on Day 1. But it isn't the case. PM is the best QB that has ever lived Andrew is going to follow his footsteps.. NO ONE KNOWS how good he he can be, particularly with these expectations.

ATM there is no arguement against Pey-Luck because we don't know what the salary structure will be. We are arguing over 28 million that hasn't been paid and a date that quite possibly can be moved.

PM said he wants to play for 16 years. Thats 2 years away. I too would like to see Luck get snaps as quickly as possible and if we start winning he will get Junk Time. There is a good chance we can have our cake and eat it too.

If Irsay and Manning can strike a deal Pey-Luck is in the best interest of the Colts for both short and long term success.

The only thing we don't know is if Peyton will take a cut. That should be the only arguement at this time.

[subvet]

Well if we had the #1 pick in recent drafts you still have to factor in Mannings contract. I dont understand this scenario of just rewinding everything a year.

How do you know the 'most likely' scenario is Manning would take a long term deal worth far less money? I don't see any signs pointing to this. Any long term deal would mean the Colts have Manning dead set as their short term future and would worry about the long term future after he retires. This completely goes against taking Luck as Luck is the long term future(or any QB #1). This is why trading the pick makes more sense if the Colts are commited to Manning for the next 'x' amount of years. Surround him with the best talent the Colts can and get to the Super Bowl.

I have not heard anyone suggest Manning would sign a long term deal for less money. I've heard a 1 or 2 year deal which makes the most sense IF it is an absolute must to have Manning back. This way you get Manning for a year or two, Luck to sit and learn, and Manning's health is not a huge risk. Unfortunately I dont think Manning will settle for a 5mill contract. We're talking Travaris Jackson money.

Incentives my man, incentives for performance will get him to sign ze papah!

[Fx Stryker]

Well if we had the #1 pick in recent drafts you still have to factor in Mannings contract. I dont understand this scenario of just rewinding everything a year.

How do you know the 'most likely' scenario is Manning would take a long term deal worth far less money? I don't see any signs pointing to this. Any long term deal would mean the Colts have Manning dead set as their short term future and would worry about the long term future after he retires. This completely goes against taking Luck as Luck is the long term future(or any QB #1). This is why trading the pick makes more sense if the Colts are commited to Manning for the next 'x' amount of years. Surround him with the best talent the Colts can and get to the Super Bowl.

I have not heard anyone suggest Manning would sign a long term deal for less money. I've heard a 1 or 2 year deal which makes the most sense IF it is an absolute must to have Manning back. This way you get Manning for a year or two, Luck to sit and learn, and Manning's health is not a huge risk. Unfortunately I dont think Manning will settle for a 5mill contract. We're talking Travaris Jackson money.

I think character is what you're doing when nobody else is around. To me, that's the best way that I know to describe it. Are you the right kind of guy? Do you have the right things inside of you? Do you love the game? Like I said, would you play for free in the NFL? Obviously, I wouldn't tell my owner that, but I would. I think you want to be around those kind of guys, guys that love it, guys that are thinking about it. They always say, "Don't take your job home." When you go home, don't take it. I don't agree with that. I think if you love what you do, there is nothing wrong with being home with your family and thinking about the game that Sunday, or thinking about, "I might need to do this." That means you love it. That doesn't mean you're obsessed with it. That doesn't mean that your priorities are out of whack. That means you love what you do. I think it has a lot to do with the character of the guys that you have on your team.

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/man0int-1

Fifth video on the first page.

[colts_mp]

Why in the world would Andrew Luck want to waste 1/3 or 1/4 of his career sitting on the bench? If he's a real competitor then there should be no reason he would agree to that. His dad was an NFL QB (like Mannings) so I would think Oliver wouldn't let his son go into a situation where he is not going to get to play.

[WSO]

http://www.achieveme.../page/man0int-1

Fifth video on the first page.

If you honestly think Manning is going to play for free in the NFL I dont know what to tell you. In an interview you say the right things and in this case he is talking about character. Hence why he said that after "Do you love the game?". He is stating he would play for free because of his love for the game but he is not literally saying "Hey guys I want to play for free, don't pay me a salary at all".

Using that logic, the Colts only need to offer Manning a veteran minimum next season AND FOR SURE he will be a Colt. Right? I mean he said he would play for free.

Let me show you something to re-consider if you really think Manning will play for less. I watched this interview with Condon a few weeks ago on NFLN.

Condon acknowledged it would be possible for the two sides to re-negotiate the contract and move back the date that the Colts have to pay the bonus, but he didn’t sound interested in doing that. Manning’s side will hold the Colts to that contract, and that means the Colts will cut Manning before paying the $28 million bonus.

While I'm not stating for sure, Condon did not sound like he wanted to renegotiate or move the current contract. Now why would that be a problem if Peyton would play for free?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82691bc0/article/condon-it-isnt-foolish-to-believe-manning-can-play-again

2:22

[WSO]

Guys, we pretty much all want to draft Andrew Luck so lets relax.

Just as much as you want people to be preparred let go of a 36 year old QB, you must also prepare yourself for the fact that Andrew Luck may not start in the National Football League in 2012. If this is something that rubs you the wrong way (perhaps he is your old roomie from stanford, or your cousin, whateves), then maybe you have an emotional and personal tie to Andrew Luck and need to let that go as well.

See, if Andrew was going to replace Jim Harbaugh...or if he got drafted by teh Browns or the Dolphins, that would be fine to start on Day 1. But it isn't the case. PM is the best QB that has ever lived Andrew is going to follow his footsteps.. NO ONE KNOWS how good he he can be, particularly with these expectations.

ATM there is no arguement against Pey-Luck because we don't know what the salary structure will be. We are arguing over 28 million that hasn't been paid and a date that quite possibly can be moved.

PM said he wants to play for 16 years. Thats 2 years away. I too would like to see Luck get snaps as quickly as possible and if we start winning he will get Junk Time. There is a good chance we can have our cake and eat it too.

If Irsay and Manning can strike a deal Pey-Luck is in the best interest of the Colts for both short and long term success.

The only thing we don't know is if Peyton will take a cut. That should be the only arguement at this time.

He is not being drafted under a healthy Manning. We have no idea how Manning will be next season. This is why it is a very real possibility Luck could be starting. I am not saying he will for sure but if we were talking about a 100% Manning that never had the surgery and somehow in an unlikely scenario we got Luck, Then no, Luck would NOT be starting over Manning. But this is different, this is a different Manning right now.

I do agree that we don't know if Peyton will take a cut. For some reason fans think Manning will come back to the Colts and take a mediocre Salary and try to carry a rebulding team back to the Super Bowl. Mannings first and foremost priority is to win Super Bowls. Not retire as a Colt, not please the fans, not teach a backup QB how to play, its to win super bowls. He may very well find another team that is more SB ready for the Colts and choose them regardless.

[BleedingBlue]

He is not being drafted under a healthy Manning. We have no idea how Manning will be next season. This is why it is a very real possibility Luck could be starting. I am not saying he will for sure but if we were talking about a 100% Manning that never had the surgery and somehow in an unlikely scenario we got Luck, Then no, Luck would NOT be starting over Manning. But this is different, this is a different Manning right now.

(IMO Grigs and Pag have seen him throw), obviously this can't be proven so Ill agree with you here.

Mannings first and foremost priority is to win Super Bowls. Not retire as a Colt, not please the fans, not teach a backup QB how to play, its to win super bowls. He may very well find another team that is more SB ready for the Colts and choose them regardless.

Here I disagree. After Eli won ring #2 Peyton was asked point blank if there is a need for another ring to compete with little brother and he said he would be happy with his achievements if he never took another snap in teh NFL again. In a seperate interview he said he wants to retire a colt. IN an older interview he said he wants to play about 16 years (which leaves 2).

Let me just throw this out there. Remember when we were furious over the fact that Caldwell hadn't been fired? Then all of the sudden, Irsay fires him, the rest of the staff and the GM.

We could very well be reading this whole thing entirely wrong. Posturing is always a possibility.

[Fx Stryker]

If you honestly think Manning is going to play for free in the NFL I dont know what to tell you. In an interview you say the right things and in this case he is talking about character. Hence why he said that after "Do you love the game?". He is stating he would play for free because of his love for the game but he is not literally saying "Hey guys I want to play for free, don't pay me a salary at all".

Using that logic, the Colts only need to offer Manning a veteran minimum next season AND FOR SURE he will be a Colt. Right? I mean he said he would play for free.

Let me show you something to re-consider if you really think Manning will play for less. I watched this interview with Condon a few weeks ago on NFLN.

While I'm not stating for sure, Condon did not sound like he wanted to renegotiate or move the current contract. Now why would that be a problem if Peyton would play for free?

http://www.nfl.com/n...-can-play-again

2:22

Condon says all those things. Of course Condon has a problem with it. Peyton brings him the most income of all his clients.You think an agent is okay with the their client taking little to nil money? No, that means they also get little to nil money. If you think in Peyton's mind he feels like he is obligated to this money you are dead wrong. The only thing he feels obligated to is earning what they give him. Time and time again Peyton has proved money isn't what he is after. His last contract Jim Irsay was dancing about saying he is going to make Peyton the highest paid player ever, somewhere around a contract of $125-130 million. Peyton came out instantly and said he didn't want that at all. His contract in '04 he did the same thing. In Peyton's mind he feels he needs to earn that money. When he entered the league, you can see in that interview, Peyton was asked by the media what he is going to do with his money and he said "earn it." Which he did actually say. I can guarantee it bothered him last season he made that money by doing nothing. This is why he pushed himself as hard as he could to come back an try and help his team. So until you have words from Peyton's mouth saying money is what I want then you have no argument.