OT: Seems like a storm's a-brewin' in Indy
Peyton Manning gave an interview to the Indy Star (read it here), and he talks about the weird atmosphere surrounding the Colts' organization right now. It seems like Irsay is setting the stage to let Manning go, but that's just speculation on my part. In an ideal world, they'd be able to pony up the cash for both Manning and Luck for a year or two, to ease the transition, but I don't think it's feasible. A couple quotes from Manning:
"I'm not in a very good place for healing, let's say that," he said, referring to the practice facility. "It's not a real good environment down there right now, to say the least. Everybody's walking around on eggshells. I don't recognize our building right now. There's such complete and total change."
"But I understand how it works. I understand tough decisions have to be made. There's personal and there's business and that's where we’ve got to separate the two. I've seen other guys leave places and it was personal. I've invested too much into this city for that to happen. We live here, we've given lots of time and money to the community and our church, and that's never going to change Nothing changes that."
Should be interesting to see how things develop over the next couple of months. For those in Indy, what's the vibe among the fans right now?
January 24th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
Isn't there a new rookie pay scale that doesn't completely kill a franchise for having to sign the #1 pick these days? if so, they could and should sign both Manning and Luck. It would be an extremely rare win-win-win scenario.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^
I think Cam Newton made over 4 mil last year and I think it's a 10% increase to the rookie wage scale each year. Almost 4.5 mil is a lot to pay for a backup QB, especially when your starter makes what Manning makes.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^
Not to mention Manning's $28 million roster bonus that's due soon. From a business stand point you've got to cut the guy.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:58 PM ^
It's just the cap.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^
Is this a money issue (as in the owner doesn't want to pay) or a salary cap one?
January 24th, 2012 at 1:53 PM ^
It's both. Roster bonuses, unlike signing bonuses (which are prorated) or performance incentives (which mostly don't hit the cap, at least not in the year they are earned), hit all at once. So he's looking at a big cash outlay but also a big salary cap hit. Now, with the new salary floor, Irsay will likely be forced to spend that money anyways ("spend" meaning have that much hit the cap).
January 24th, 2012 at 3:33 PM ^
It may simply be a time to rebuild issue. After seeing the team go 2 -14 without Manning, I'm sure Irsay did not want to fall in the trap the Cowboys & 49ers did. Irsay might be thinking, I have Luck gauranteed, what's the best way to ensure a strong future? Trade my current top assets which will be gone within a few years anyway so I can build around Luck. This would also help explain the Caldwell firing, since it takes a different type of coach to coach a young and learning team versus a vertan team. You very well could be looking at something similar to the begining of the Manning era for Indy all over again. That certainly worked out ok.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
Double post, so here's a weird picture of Jim Irsay
http://baltimoresportsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/jim-irsay.j…
January 24th, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^
The Colts have more problems than the QB position. Manning's salary could go a long way toward rebuilding the team. It seams like it would be good for Luck's development to have Manning around but I don't think it makes business sense.
I really don't see how the Colts can move forward with Manning on the roster. He is 38 years old with at best a few good seasons left. At worst he may not play again. Indianapolis isn't making a Super Bowl run in the next two years so they need to part ways. I imagine Manning is still valuable in a trade; if they could trade him for a couple of first round draft picks they could being a really good position to compete for the AFC in two or three seasons. Of course this presumes that Andrew Luck is the real deal. I think he is.
I'm not a Colts fan but think the situation is interesting.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^
Nobody in their right mind would trade two first round draft picks for Manning, just in time to pay him a $28 million roster bonus. All they have to do is wait for Indy to cut him, keep their draft picks, and then sign Manning as an FA with a much smaller signing bonus than $28 million.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^
I mean, when they made the deal, they couldn't blame it on this guy not being in his right mind...
...or alive. If they could do it post Al, someone else could do it.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:57 PM ^
He came out the same year as Charles. Charles is 34 or 35.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:11 PM ^
Woodson was a Junior while Manning came out as a Senior. Also, Manning turns 36 in a couple of months. Still relatively old for the NFL...
January 24th, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^
As I understand it, Luck's contract wouldn't be the problem-- it's Manning's deal that would be the major issue. He's due a $28 million roster bonus in March or April, IIRC. Add that to Luck's signing bonus, his overall deal, and the Colts' remaining needs, and I'm not sure the math works any more. The Colts may have to deal Manning before the draft.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^
Luck's bonus plus salary will come out to approximately 15.1 mil (in 2012, not total). Manning is due a roster bonus if he's not traded/released. His 2012 salary (7.4 mil) plus bonus (28 mil) means the Colts would be putting 50.5 million dollars into one position group for one season, only one of whom can play at a time. That's insane.
Beyond that, the salary cap for 2012 is projected to be around 125 mil, meaning the Colts would have roughly 40% of their cap space tied up in two players. Basically you're talking about putting 50.5 mil into two players (25.25 mil per player) and 74.5 mil into the other 51 (1.45 mil per player). That's not a very effective way to run a team.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^
While the bonus will probably all be paid up front as a signing bonus (meaning between Manning and Luck they'd have a big cash outlay this year), Luck's cap hit won't be too bad. Newton's cap hit for the 2011 season was only a little over 4 million since the signing bonus gets prorated over the life of the contract. Luck's won't be prohibitive to having both him and Manning around either if they really want to keep Manning for a year or two. Manning's number, on the other hand, will be massive unless they renegotiate.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
Luck's signing bonus get's prorated, so he's not going to be close to a 15 million dollar cap hit. Based on projections from last year and a rough 10% increase that was outlined in the CBA, pretty sure Luck will only hit the cap for about 4.5-5 mil.
Edit: Beaten to the punch. One of the many perils of typing up comments while paying attention in class.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^
Well, basically every analyst in the country including guys like Pat Kirwan that were in charge of cap numbers when they were GM's etc., are saying the combined number will be over $50 mil. That's what I'm going off of here.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:38 PM ^
I'm curious where you saw that, because it seems really off.
Here's an article from Jeff Diamond, former VP and GM of the Vikings and former President of the Titans.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/jeff_diamond/01/03/colts…
"Newton's first-year cap hit is $4 million, so Luck's will be just slightly higher than that."
Also, I worked in an NFL front office and dealt with rookie deals this past off season, so I'm not just making stuff up.
It's possible that I'm missing something, but I just don't see how Luck plus $35 mil gets you to $50 mil.
January 24th, 2012 at 3:16 PM ^
ESPN NFL business analyst Andrew Brandt on twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/160403744616493056
Pat Kirwan has also mentioned it several times on Sirius NFL Radio, as have a number of other hosts including Gil Brandt.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:02 PM ^
Maybe not in the short run, but what about the long-term implications of having Peyton and Luck at the same time? That takes the immense pressure of performing well as a rookie off of Luck's shoulders, gives him an extra year to learn the offense, how to prepare for an NFL game, etc. I think that naturally leads to the question "Does it really make that much of a difference (for a rookie QB to have a year or two under the wing of an older, more experienced QB)?" And to that, I don't have an empirical answer, but on the surface, it certainly seems like it makes a difference. You look at guys like Brady and Rodgers who were able to sit behind older, more experienced QBs, and then you look at guys like Andy Dalton, Sam Bradford, and Colt McCoy who have been thrust into difficult positions early in their careers, and I think it definitely makes sense to try to ease a new QB into the league as slowly as possible.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:00 PM ^
That the Colts have a higher opinion of their franchise than last place and they are going to blow up the organization including Manning and that anyone who disagrees with the path forward is gone or oun the outs.
Its basically a corporate reorganization. Manning is simply sensing that the axe is about to fall and he wouldn't be talking about it if he was "in the know."
Goober had a good run. He's a HOF QB. He should quit while he's not Brett Favre
January 24th, 2012 at 3:02 PM ^
I believe Luck stated through his father, that he wouldn't sign with the Colts if Manning was there. So I doubt signing both would happen. He wanted someplace that he would have a shot at being the "top" guy ASAP!
January 24th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^
Why would they keep Manning to ease the transition? I mean they did fine this season without him right...
In all seriousness though, I have never been a fan of P. Manning but after watching the colts this year I would have to say my clear choice for MVP of the NFL would be P. Manning because their performance without him spoke volumes about how valuable he is to that team. The colt's have a tough choice to make, but if I were the one making the decisions I couldn't see how you could afford not to keep Manning.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
Not to minimize the impact of having Peyton Manning, but the problems with the Colts' roster this year did not stop at QB. They had several other huge holes on both sides of the ball and other key injuries. Obviously Manning was a big loss, but this season was a long time in the making. There is a reason the GM and Coach both got fired.
January 24th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^
I mean, I think it would be absurd to give an MVP to a player who didn't play, but they haven't had a run game for years, have had a receiving core of Reggie Wayne and whoever is healthy for years, a defensive line that can rush the QB but not stop the run for years, and injuries all over their secondary, for years. Peyton's presence turned a mediocre team into a Super Bowl contender, and a terrible team into a playoff threat. I love Brady and live in Boston so II get to see him all the time, but the Pats went 10-6 when Brady went down, starting a QB who hadn't played since high school in his place, because the Pats were a more complete team. The cupboard has been bare in Indy for years, and Peyton's excellence was why no one noticed.
If I were Indy, I'd let him go and start rebuilding my team. And if I were Peyton, I'd want to leave, and find one of the many teams with a better supporting cast that I could lead to a Super Bowl, since teams will be falling over themselves to sign me.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^
But I'd love to see Harbaugh get him for a couple years...they would be really good.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:29 PM ^
If Peyton needs a job I hear Charles Woodson is looking to hire someone to come over and polish his Heisman Trophy whenever it gets too dusty.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
The Colts are that team that comes together when they are young, sticks together, wins lots of games, then gets old, and the organization is too stupid to see that they needed to replace aging players a long time ago.
Srlsy, bringing in a retired Kerry Collins for 2 weeks of training camp and starting him for the first what 4-5 games is your idea of a back up plan? Just terrible, if you didnt think your backups can at least sub a game or two for you then why are they on the roster?
January 24th, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^
I argue that it is stupid to "plan" for your best player to be out for the year. My buddy (Bears fan) was pining for the team to fire their GM (which they did), but I argued that if he was to plan (see build a team with the idea in mind) for the team to lose their starting QB and RB then that would be reckless and stupid. Some things you just don't plan for, you make due when they happen.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^
As a bears fan, one who is thrilled that they fired angelo, you need to have backups. Your backups won't be as good as your starters, but let's look at what happened to the Bears this year:
Cutler goes down. Throw out the young guy who isn't paid much who hopefully could tread water. The Bears were 7-3. If they go .500 the rest of the way they make the playoffs (at 10-6, over the Giants who were 9-7). Instead of treading water they got jack from the offense. Once Forte went down we put high priced Cowboys sendoff Marion Barber in, who only lost us the Broncos game by being dumb twice.
I guess what I'm saying is the Bears had so many holes on offense as well, that's poor planning. With the Colts, Manning masked a crappy O line, lack of running game, etc.
With the Bears Cutler and Forte masked (er... got killed because of) a crappy O line, possession receivers, and Roy Williams (Dammit Angelo!).
Contrast this with the Patriots. They have a stellar QB, but when he went down the other pieces didn't disinigrate. It doesn't look like Matt Cassel is all that great... but the other pieces in New England could do pretty well. That's having a successful plan.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^
After the playoff performance, where some even wanted the guy to get time over Cutler, they thought they had an emergency back-up QB. No one wins with a back-up QB for long. The Pats did ok, but that was a much different Pats team than it is now...and much different than the Bears. If Brady went down this year, even with Cassel, and they'd have been closer to the Colts than that Pats team.
Second, they wouldn't have gotten in over the Giants, because the Giants won their division. Over the Lions? Would depend on who they beat for tiebreakers. So, they're either MAYBE first round sacrifices with a back-up QB, or they get higher picks to shore up those other problems you mention, rather than having all their money in back-ups who won't play if things go well, and won't really matter if things go wrong.
I'm not sure he was an overall good GM. I'm just not sure that this season was the one to illustrate he wasn't.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^
and you corrected me well. Thanks.
My thing with Angelo is I feel that he did a decent job of identifying defensive talent, made some good deals, and made some awful picks/signings. I don't know how much of it was Martz's influence, but letting Olsen go, the Cowboys pickups, not signing Forte to a deal, wasting draft picks on QBs, the inability to get a #1 receiver since oh, 2001? It was definitely time for Angelo to go.
January 24th, 2012 at 2:12 PM ^
He wanted Angelo gone too. (Though I think he wanted Lovie gone too). No expert though, and I think the Bears have made some errors that justify a change. I just don't know that this season's collapse is one. Not having a line so you don't have those injuries? Dicking around Forte? Yeah, those may be good reasons.
My thing with ANY firing, unless things are just absolutely a tire fire where nothing could really be worse (and really, it almost always could get worse), is "do you have someone better to replace them?" General fans are always willing to say "fire X". But do they have someone better in mind to replace them? Most of the time they have no idea...they just want their righteous rage to be slacked with blood. In the Bears case, they had the Colts overreact, and Bill Polian is just sitting out there. But they seem to be going in a different direction, with Licht or Emery. Are those guys sure things? Considering everyone's been fired a few times in KC, and everyone who leaves the Pats seems to have a curse upon them, I don't know....but I guess you don't know unless you try.
January 24th, 2012 at 3:33 PM ^
The Lovie and/or Angelo debate is a good one. Was it talent evaluation or talent development that has been the Bears' downfall? What percentage of each? Angelo took the fall here, obviously, but it's some of both.
With your idea on the firing though, I disagree with you. Yes, you want someone better to replace the outgoing person... but I think that what the Bears did is say "Mediocrity isn't good enough here". Going forward either they'll find someone great and improve, or flame out and try again. But they're bucking their status quo of "decent team, playoffs occasionally" and going for "Perrenial contender". I at least hope they're striving for gold.
January 24th, 2012 at 4:25 PM ^
I think teams can fire someone because they're not satisfied with the production. Because they will do the research to find a candidate who will do better (or at least you'd hope...but Matt Millen's do get hired). I was speaking more of fans, who are ready to fire anybody at the drop of a hat (or trade, or bench anyone) but have no idea who you'd go out and get that would be better.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^
A solid OL (see Pats) covers up a lot of problems on offense. A shaky OL (see Bears) not so much.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
Kind of like the Pistons a few years back
January 24th, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^
It's already a class 4 hurricane. Releasing Manning would bump it up to a class 5.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^
I love how it is a foregone conclusion that Andrew Luck is going to come in and be an elite Qb immediately. The colts are simply not that good of a team. No prospect, not even Luck, is a sure thing. He might end up stinking, who knows.
Let's see how it goes when he takes over an average, aging team with little young talent and has to live up to the expectations that come with replacing one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the league.
Meanwhile Manning will have gone to a good team in need of a good QB and will likely be in the hunt for superbowls during Luck's first few seasons. Things are going to get very interesting around that situation.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:56 PM ^
will cut Manning--to save boatloads of cash--draft luck, and...pick up a veteran quarterback in free agency. There are a lot of targets: Flynn, Orton, Gerrard, Brees (probably too expensive). I think they will start there rebuilding process now and go out and spend the Manning money on as much new talent as possible.
I think they start the veteran quarterback for the first year (maybe two?) while the team is in severe transition. This gives the organaziation a chance to rebuild, time to bring in new players, and--most importantly--time for luck to develop and learn a system.
And I hate all this because I root against the colts.
On the other hand, maybe they think Luck=$ and they just throw him in the fire...
January 24th, 2012 at 1:43 PM ^
They can probably get a 1st and a 2nd for a healthy Manning no way they cut him.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^
Disagree. Unless he's willing to renegotiate his deal just to be traded, which it seems like he's too stubborn to do, no team wants that contract. And if he doesn't extend the date on that roster bonus, no teams going to want him without being able to really assess the progress in his recovery.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^
Pay Manning the 28 million, draft Luck, play them for a year, and then cut Manning if you must. That way even if you cut Manning, noones going to blame a team that basically payed a 28 million dollar severance fee. A small price to pay for decades of elite QB play if Luck pans out.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
I will burn every Colts item, except for Peyton's of course, if they get rid of Peyton before he retires. I don't care if they continue to suck with him. Peyton MADE the INDIANAPOLIS colts... don't get me wrong, Harbaugh had a couple good years in Indy, but Peyton made a state of basketball fans into die-hard football.
God Bless.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^
Sounds like Peyton is saying he dont want to be there..just keeping it on the sly ... Peyton may want to go to a team that can win now..seeing the Colts look to be starting over as the team is old...
i can understand both sides if the Colts and Peyton split
January 24th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^
I heard Mannings #'s will be off the books by 2013? That would open up TONS of cap space to help Luck out on the field.
The NFL is booming with young QB's right now, Stafford, Rodgers, Cutler, Newton, Dalton, ect. Now is the time for Indy to make the move if it wants to compete in the next ten years.
January 24th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^
January 24th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
I just read this article this morning. Lots of money involved. It would be really expensive to keep Manning and have Luck, too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-brandt/peyton-manning-colts-future_b_1227764.html
January 24th, 2012 at 1:08 PM ^
Let's say that he becomes a free agent. Who does he sign with? Who are the Super Bowl contenders that need an upgrade at QB....49ers?