Choose Your Own Adventure: The Colts 2012 Off-Season
Greg Cowan lays out the Colts options for the 2012 off-season, tells us which option he would choose for the Colts, and which route he thinks the Colts will head.
The Indianapolis Colts may not have a General Manager, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about the job that is facing Bill Polian's (I'm contractually obligated to say his name at least once per article) eventual successor. Whoever ultimately fills the GM position will be faced with an interesting, and perhaps daunting, task: decide on a course of action for a team that had incredible success under the previous administration, while dealing with some potentially touchy contract situations.
Do they look at their roster and decide they have enough talent to take a run at winning championships with the current group of veterans? Or do they decide that, with the first overall pick in the draft in their back pocket, 2012 is the perfect time to start that rebuild they've been planning all these years? Or are they really not sure what they should do, and decide to do a little of both?
We'll take a look at all of these options, what they entail, how the Colts could go about implementing each plan, and what the pros and cons of each situation would be. At the end of the exercise I'll give you my opinion on what the Colts should do and also my read on what they will do.
Option 1: "One more run"
The word fan is short for fanatic. We would not shell out the money for tickets, TV packages, and apparel if we weren't completely and hopelessly invested in our teams. Players, especially those who are "home grown" - drafted by, and developed by one organization - find their way into our hearts, and they become ours. Our players.
In the early part of the "aughts", the Colts broke their fans hearts on more than one occasion: the loss to the Jets, the meltdowns against the Patriots, and a serving of Mike Vanderjagt casserole were all extremely tough, taxing losses for fans. But those were our Colts, our players, and we stood by them through each of those losses.
The payoff, of course, was grand. 2006 was special. Anytime "your" team wins the championship is special, of course, but these were our players. Players we had stuck with through the ups and the downs, through the tragedy that struck the family in 2005. Seeing the Colts raise the Lombardi will always be special, but to watch Manning, Dungy, Harrison, Wayne, Saturday, Bob, Freeney, Mathis, et al, raise it? For many, it was validation, the reward for sticking with the team no matter what.
In the minds of many, the end of this "era" with these players would be at the end of Manning's career. The team would do whatever was necessary - pushing back cap hits, trades, and perhaps even the occasional free agent acquisition - to give this group of players as many shots at a championship as possible before it was time to "blow it up" and start over. If you're one of those people, Option One is for you.
What does it entail?
In a perfect world, one in which Peyton Manning would be 100% healthy in 2012 and there was no salary cap, this would likely be the most attractive option. But this world is not perfect, so those are the two key issues the Colts must navigate as they chart their 2012 course.
Let's actually take this opportunity to discuss Manning for a moment. Given his contract, the way it was structured and timed, and given the new CBA, there is absolutely no way the Colts can trade Peyton Manning.
He is due a $28MM Roster Bonus on March 8th, but player trading would not open up until the following week. So If Manning were on the roster on March 8th and the Colts traded him a week later, the Colts would be assessed an immediate cap hit of at least $28MM on their 2012 cap. If the Colts intend to keep Manning, they will simply pay him his $28MM Roster Bonus, and for cap purposes convert that $28MM from a "Roster Bonus" to a "Signing Bonus" and then prorate it over the term of the contract. So that $28MM would be spread over the remaining 4 years of the contract, resulting in a $7MM/year in cap hit for the next four seasons for just this bonus. Note: they cannot prorate the bonus and then trade him, the cap hit would be immediate. So with these details in mind, there are only three options for Peyton Manning and the Colts: retirement, release, roster.
In keeping with the "R" theme, here's one more "R": remember, the out-clause that Manning and the Colts have, which allows the Colts to get out from Manning's contract without taking any additional cap hits or owing Manning any additional money, is good for this year and this year only. That is why the Colts must be 100% certain that Manning is healthy, because the cap implications of having an unfit Manning on the roster would be devastating.
With all that said, for this exercise we are going to assume that Manning is either at, or very close to, 100% by March 8th.
With a healthy Manning ready to go for 2012, the Colts would now turn their attention to retaining as many of their key vets as possible. This would start by approaching one vet under contract for 2012 - Dwight Freeney - and asking him to rework his deal. Freeney is due to make $19.5MM in 2012, which is also the final year of his contract. That would account for about 16% of next year's total salary cap. A new contract would give Freeney more up front (bonus) money and provide the team with some much-needed cap relief, which they would then use for player retention.
The next step in this plan would likely be to approach three other veterans under contract in 2012 - running back Joseph Addai, tight end Dallas Clark, and linebacker Gary Brackett - and either restructure or release all 3. The trio's salaries in 2012 will be: Clark - $8.0MM, Brackett - $5.0MM, and Addai - $4.67MM. Given their salaries, age, injury history and the performance of their backups, these three are the most likely candidates to be cut in an effort to provide additional cap relief. And while it's impossible to know the exact savings the Colts would receive in 2012 from all 3 moves - the specific base salaries and bonus money is very hard to come by - their savings in 2013 and beyond would be significant.
From there, the Colts would likely identify which of their free agent veterans are vital to the team success. Their likely targets would be Jeff Saturday, Robert Mathis, Reggie Wayne, and Pierre Garcon. Saturday and Mathis are easy to explain - they either play a position that requires a special understanding with Manning that would be hard to instill in a rookie (Saturday) or they play a premium position that is not readily available in either free agency or the 2012 draft (Mathis).
Wayne and Garcon are a little trickier. Both play a position many deem fungible, and both are likely looking to be paid top dollar this off-season. While paying Garcon would be easier to swallow - he's young, has a rare combination of size and speed, and seemed to mature as a receiver this year even in the absence of Manning - paying Wayne is a much riskier proposition. At 33, Wayne is looking for one final pay day, and he likely won't be giving the Colts, or any other team for that matter, a discount. But Wayne showed in 2011 that he still has enough in the tank to be a contributor to a good offense, and locking both him and Garcon up would free up the Colts to use their assets - either money or draft picks - on other positions.
After locking up the most vital pieces, the Colts would likely look at the rest of their impending free agents and look for opportunities for cheaper signings that, like the Wayne and Garcon signings, would fill a starting spot and allow them to use draft picks on other needs. With that philosophy in mind, the Colts would likely target tight end Jacob Tamme - a player who has shown to be a more-than-capable starter (for a fraction of the cost) in Dallas Clark's absence - and linebacker Philip Wheeler, a player that has been impressive in a starting capacity over the past two seasons.
Assuming the Colts locked up all six players - Saturday, Mathis, Wayne, Garcon, Wheeler, and Tamme - they would enter the 2012 draft with a focused vision: trade the top draft pick and turn the Colts defense into a dynamic unit that could help win championships. This would likely be the easiest of their off-season tasks, as the #1 pick has enormous value, and multiple teams would likely enter a hotly-contested bidding war in an effort to obtain the pick. While it's hard to pinpoint the pick's exact value - some have put its base value at four (4) 1st round picks (and that's without a bidding war) - it is safe to suggest that the Colts would walk away with no fewer than 5 "first-day" (rounds 1-3) picks, or equal value, in this draft.
With those picks, the Colts would devote all of their attention to defense, looking for a player like CB Morris Claiborne, DB Dre Kirkpatrick, or DT Devon Still with their first round pick, and then looking for additional play-makers at S, CB, and DT where they can. The Colts could choose to be aggressive and package some of the picks they received for the #1 Overall and move up to grab two of those top-3 defensive players. Regardless of how they approach the draft, the result would be clear: a restocked defense that, under the right system, would be one of the driving forces - not a passenger - on the road to a championship.
PROs
Simply put - we, as fans, get closure. We watch our favorite players make one more run at the championship, and we get to watch them go out on their own terms. We aren't fretting over awkward goodbyes due to nerve regeneration, or watching Reggie Wayne and Robert Mathis suit up for the Miami Dolphins. We get to watch OUR PLAYERS play for, and perhaps win, another championship. Isn't that what being a fan is all about?
CONs
We live in a salary cap world now, so even if the Colts decided to go the "One More Run" avenue, fans would likely be saying goodbye to some of their favorite players. While the fan movements to keep Manning, Wayne, and Mathis are honorable, they may not be realistic. The Colts have serious cap issues, and it would require a lot of "cap massaging" combined with a little assistance from players accepting new (or lower) deals. Simply put, we can't always get what we want.
Option 2: "The Rebuild"
Before we get into this scenario I ask that, if you haven't already, please read this article I wrote for Coltzilla back in September of 2011. I looked at what a rebuild entails, the number of seasons fans should expect a rebuild to last, and the key ingredients for completing the rebuild. It's a good read (if I do say so myself) and should help alleviate some concerns fans may have.
Note that some of the factors in that article (most notably Bill and Chris Polian's involvement) have changed, but the overriding theme remains: unless the Colts mess this up, they should be back to their contending ways sooner than later.
In section one we opened talking about our emotional attachment to specific players. In this segment we'll discuss the fans on the opposite end of the spectrum: the ones who don't care for the names on the back of jerseys, only those on the front. This section is for the cold, calculating business man, the one who identifies the path of sustained success, with the least transitional period, and swiftly moves towards it. For those fans we have Option Two, the rebuild.
What does it entail?
Rebuilding, if done right, is a fairly straightforward process. The first step in that process is to identify which players - if any - are your young, "core" players, players who will still be in their prime in the three or so years when the team is ready to start contending for championships again. Once you have identified those players the only thing you must do with them is re-sign them if needed.
For a working example, let's use Pierre Garcon. Garcon is a 25-year old wide receiver who possess all of the talent to be a true number one receiver in the NFL. By the time the Colts rebuild is complete, Garcon will still be in the middle of his prime, and ready to perform at a high level in the playoffs. The Colts will likely identify Garcon as a core player, and, depending on how high his salary demands are, pay him as such in the off-season.
Once the Colts have taken care of their young core, they will move on to the veterans. In a proper rebuild, very few, if any, veterans will survive the first off-season. The idea is to bottom out, both from an "older talent" perspective and a salary perspective. They may try to trade some of their veterans, but with the way trades work in the NFL, they will likely be forced to cut most of their veteran players.
Players like Manning, Addai, Clark, Brackett, Melvin Bullitt, as well as all of the previously mentioned unrestricted free agents, will be let go. Some may look at the minimal cap savings the Colts would get this year and ask, "what's the point?", but as we said in the previous section, these cuts are more about future cap savings than 2012 cap savings.
Dwight Freeney is once again an interesting topic in this scenario. He clearly still has enough gas in the tank to be a top tier defensive end - not only 2012, but beyond - but once again the issue is his $19MM base salary and the resulting cap hit. Perhaps the Colts would prefer to avoid parting ways with every great player of this era all at once, and would decide to eat the $19MM for no other reason than a gesture to the fans - this wouldn't affect their future cap, and shouldn't hinder the rebuilding process in any way.
Perhaps they even look at Freeney, who will only be 32 at the start of next season, and decide that he can still be an effective player through the end of the rebuild, and they try to sign him to a cap-friendly contract. Whichever route the Colts go this off-season, Dwight Freeney's situation will be one of the most fascinating to watch.
After clearing the decks this off-season, the Colts' first move towards actually restocking the roster with talent will be the 2012 draft. They will pick Andrew Luck. I'm not sure they will even try to be cute, to put up a song-and-dance to throw people off. However they play it, if the Colts go this route, I don't see any scenario in which they don't draft Andrew Luck.
Outside of that first pick, what will they do? After clearing the deck, they'll be doing nothing but drafting the best available player, regardless of position (well, minus quarterback). They won't need to focus solely on offense or defense, they'll have plenty of holes to fill on both sides of the ball.
The only intrigue at the draft may come in the form of trade backs. This is a tactic that the Patriots have used - much to the delight of the media - in recent drafts. Looking at their success with those trade backs, however, would suggest that trading back is rarely the best course of action.
For the Colts, the focus should be on picking the best talent with highest upside, and those players are usually found with the higher picks. Sure, if some team knocks their socks off with an amazing offer, they should take it, otherwise, they should use the picks they have and not try to outsmart themselves.
The most interesting aspect of the 2012 off-season is how the new front office will treat free agency. With a rebuild, they should avoid signing veteran players to anything more than 1- or 2-year contracts, as they won't be part of the core moving forward, but if any young players - especially at premium positions - become available, the new GM will likely be more aggressive in pursuing them than the previous front office was.
The 2012-2013 season will likely not be pretty from a win-loss standpoint - a team with a rookie quarterback surrounded by a lot of young, unproven talent is going to experience a few bumps in the round. Fear not, however, as another draft where the Colts pick in the top half of each round will go a long way towards restocking the roster.
How the team will perform beyond 2012-2013 is hard to predict, but the date to mark on your calendar for this process is the 2013 off-season (or just before the start of 2014). Why that date? Simple: with the newly signed CBA and TV contracts, the salary cap - which now sits at around $123MM per team, and shall do so for the 2012 and 2013 seasons - will shoot up to approximately $160MM per team.
If the Colts have played their cards right, if they cleaned off all of their bad contracts, if they made smart decisions with their draft picks and free agent acquisitions, they should have very little wasted cap. They can now use their glut of money and cap space to aggressively re-sign the young talent they have been stockpiling over the previous 3 seasons as well as go after any free agents they feel will help them win titles.
And voilà, your rebuild is complete. With a new core of players signed to long term deals, the Colts are ready to contend for the foreseeable future. All it cost their fans was the pain of watching their favorite players being cut and a couple of bad seasons. Some would say that's a small price to pay for never suffering through the fate of the Lions, Buccaneers, or, well, the Colts.
PROs
With Luck available, and with the opportunity to make these moves now with an eye towards 2014, the Colts could seamlessly transition from one era of dominance to the next. Every team has suffered through lean years, and watching the Colts transition from the Manning Era to the Luck Era without paper bags, moving trucks, or tarps would certainly draw the envy of a lot of fans.
CONs
First, the obvious: watching players like Manning, Mathis, Wayne, Addai, Clark, etc... not only leave the Colts, but put on another uniform? That will be a pain that doesn't subside easily. While it may be antiquated, the idea of players playing for one team and one team only is something that most fans want to experience. We don't want to see our favorite players succeed with another team, we don't want to have to cheer against them, boo them, or wish ill on them in any way. It may not be the most efficient way to run a franchise, but if you remove all of the emotion from the equation, what's the point?
Next, the seamless rebuild requires a lot of Luck, and that's more than just a cute play on words that will be more overused than "Tim Tebow just wins" over the next 4 months. In order to go from rebuild to contender in 3 years, the Colts would need Luck to be the player everyone is saying he will be. More than that, however, they would have to be successful with a high percentage of the rest of their draft picks, as well. Quarterback is the most important position in football, but it's not the only position, and with the kind of roster turnover the Colts would have in this scenario, they will need to be producing draft classes akin to the ones they produced in 2000-2006.
It's one thing to miss on a first round draft choice when your average draft position is 27th, it's another situation entirely to miss on top-15 draft picks. These are the lifeblood of any franchise - the young, dynamic players who anchor your roster for years - missing on those picks can have devastating repercussions.
Option 3: "The Best of Both Worlds?"
So, you don't really want to pass up on the guy many experts are calling best college prospect in the past decade, Andrew Luck, but you don't really want to cut a healthy Peyton Manning, either? If so, Option Three is for you.
If the Colts were to go this route, they would likely part ways with a good portion of their veterans as they would in a rebuilding scenario. The only exceptions would likely be Robert Mathis and perhaps, in the unlikely event that he could be convinced to take a short term deal, Reggie Wayne.
The combined cap hit for Manning and Luck would be right around $22MM in 2012. The math is pretty easy, Peyton Manning's cap hit will be approximately $17MM and Andrew Luck's contract, if you take Cam Newton's rookie contract signed in 2011 and adjust for inflation, will be right around 4 years and $22MM, for an approximate cap hit of $5MM.
While $5MM doesn't seem like a lot, remember, Jim Irsay has stated multiple times that the Colts have real salary cap issues. They were over the cap in 2011 and, under this scenario, would likely be over it again in 2012. To become cap compliant, the Colts would likely have to cut players, and, as stated, doing so would result in very little cap relief in 2012, meaning multiple players would likely have to be let go to make room for Luck's salary.
PROs
You wouldn't have to say that you cut perhaps the greatest player in the history of the NFL. You also wouldn't be on the hook for passing up what may be one of the best prospects in recent memory. This route is basically the one that covers you on a public relations front. There is no tough decision to be made in 2011.
You also have the hope that Luck can learn something by studying under Peyton Manning, though Curtis Painter and Jim Sorgi would like to have a word with you. One CON for this PRO: if Luck were to "study under Manning" and then struggle when he finally did take over the starting job, we would be forced to listen to another round of announcers tell us, "this guy would be so much better if Peyton Manning hadn't hogged all of the first team reps in practice."
CONs
First, you're not picking a course and going with it, you're trying to "have your cake and eat it, too." In reality, you are putting the franchise in a tough position by refusing to make a tough decision. As we've discussed in the previous sections, with the Colts salary concerns, they either need to be all in on clearing those salaries, or all in on pushing them back as long as possible before the cap bomb blows up on the Colts.
In this scenario they are doing some of each. They are cutting as many veteran salaries as needed to make room for Luck, but at the same time they have to re-sign some veterans so that Manning isn't surrounded by a high school team.
This would put the Colts in the absolute worst situation you can be in in sports: the mediocre middle. They would be just good enough to miss out on the high draft picks they would need to restock the roster with young, dynamic talent, while being just bad enough to not be Super Bowl contenders. The point of bringing Manning back is to win, and doing what is necessary to keep Luck, just from a financial standpoint, would hamper their ability to win.
Next is the topic of production. Many have bemoaned the production from some of the Colts recent first round picks. All of these picks came at the end of the first round, a position from which, history shows, one shouldn't expect to get a lot of production. If Jerry Hughes or Anthony Gonzalez's production irritates you, the idea of Andrew Luck sitting on the bench for somewhere between one and four seasons should anger you.
The Colts need to get value and production from their first truly valuable draft pick since 2002 (Dwight Freeney), either by drafting and playing Andrew Luck or by trading the pick for immediate help for a Manning-led squad.
Third, there is the Andrew Luck angle. The first "Luck Issue" is that he may not, nor should he want, to sit on the bench for one, let alone as many as four seasons. If Andrew Luck is as good as everyone says he is, he should start from day one. Manning himself has said that starting from day one, taking his lumps immediately, was one of the biggest factors in his development. If the Colts draft Luck, it should be with the mindset of playing him immediately - allowing him to take his lumps early, with a rebuilding team - so that when the team is ready to win, his mind and body is already on NFL speed.
Let's delve into the time table for a moment. We previously mentioned that the Colts only out in Manning's deal is this off-season. So if they keep him, it is likely with the intention of keeping him for the remainder of the contract - four seasons - if for no other reason than an inability to absorb the resulting cap hit from cutting him. So Manning plays out those four seasons while Luck sits. At the end of Manning's contract, the Colts will likely need to take some of the actions described in the rebuilding section. There will surely be some salaries that need to come off the book, some players that need to be moved, some tweaks to be made.
The point is, while the Colts may not need a full rebuild, they won't be in a position to win immediately, either. Remember, with Manning at the helm, it is unlikely that the Colts would earn those high draft picks that they would have earned under the rebuild scenario, meaning there would likely be multiple starting positions in need of upgrading.
Now you're telling Luck to not only wait four years behind Manning, but to now wait somewhere between one and three years while you tweak the rest of the roster to championship caliber. All told, you will have wasted the first two to seven years of your first overall pick before he's finally contributing towards a contender.
The second "Luck Issue" is salary. While the new CBA allows the Colts to sign Luck to a cap-friendly deal, it only lasts four years. If Manning stays healthy and continues to play at a high level, Luck may be in a position to sign his second contract without having much - if any - game action. And while the Colts may want to use the lack of playing time as a reason to offer Luck a lower contract, the fact that he would have been forced to sit on the bench for so long will likely result in a hostile contract negotiation. The Colts would have leverage - they could franchise him - but by 2015, the franchise number for quarterbacks may be prohibitive.
What should the Colts do?
I've gone back and forth on this quite a few times. During the season I was firmly in the "trade the pick, go all-in with Manning" camp. I then started to feel that Manning's career was likely over, so I came to terms with the rebuild. With the constant rumors on Manning's health - is he ready to retire? is he 90%? is he auditioning for "The Mummy: 18?" - it has become hard to know what to think. Prior to writing this article, I was firmly in the "rebuild" camp, but after writing the "One More Run" section combined with the rumored worth of the first overall pick - it's too tempting to pass up.
If Manning is healthy, the Colts should trade the pick, restock the roster with as much young talent as possible - talent that will still serve them well after Manning retires - and go for the rings. This isn't about sentimentality, either. I'm a championships kind of guy, and even with the most optimistic outlook on a rebuild, the Colts have a better chance of winning one or more championships under Option One than under a rebuild. The fact that they could win those championships with some of my favorite players of all time? Well, that wouldn't disappoint me any.
What will the Colts do?
This is the tougher question to answer. It is possible that, with no GM in place, the Colts themselves don't know the answer. After listening to every Jim Irsay press conference and interview over the past 4 months, however, I think I have an idea. I firmly believe that, if given the chance, Jim Irsay will go with Option Three. First, he loves Manning and does not want to be the man responsible for cutting him. At the same time, Irsay is likely hearing from everyone - both inside and outside of the Colts organization - that Andrew Luck is the greatest thing since sliced Vince Young, and he doesn't want to be the guy who passed on the chance to draft him.
While it is my opinion, after looking at the situation from every angle, that this is the absolute worst decision the Colts can make, it certainly feels that this is the path Jim Irsay has his mind - and his heart - set on. Will a new GM be able to convince him that another path is optimal, or will Irsay be looking for a GM that will agree with his position and carry it out in the most efficient way possible?
The 2012 off-season will be full of crucial, tough, perhaps daunting decisions. Whichever path the Colts new general manager chooses will shape the future of the franchise. Will he be the guy who cuts Peyton Manning? Will he be the guy who passes on Andrew Luck? Or will he be the guy who did neither and finds a way to have both?
As much as I hate it, we have to cut Manning. We cannot pass on Luck. I wish we could keep Manning, and still have Luck, and still have cap room to sign key players to help us make one more run with Manning, but that is just not realistic. Trading Manning doesn't seem to be an option either. We would still have to pay him the $28 mil. We need to begin the rebuild and start another decade of dominance. Hopefully, with this next team we can win more than 1 superbowl! Whatever the choice is, some will like it, some will not. To me it is better to build for the future, than trying to get one more ring for Manning when we don't have all the tools we would need to get it.
Option 1 talks about the Luck pick being worth possibly 5 first day picks this year. I think this is a fair assessment of its worth and in my opinion would be very hard to pass up. I do wonder, if the Colts decide to go with option 1, what is the worst trade offer that the Colts would be willing to accept. What if they only get offered 3 first day picks? At what point does the front office just say "Screw it" and pick Luck or someone else like Kalil or Blackmon?
One thing to remember with the cap is that it goes up dramatically in 2014. So really they just need to buy time. If they extend Freeney, that alone will create over 10 mil in space. Then, all they need to do is front load the contracts of the FA's they sign, and they will have no problem staying under the cap for the next couple of years until relief comes in 2014. This will require a lot of up front money from Irsay, but ultimately, he would get it all back in the ladder years once the cap and contracts balanced out.
If Manning is healthy trade the pick to the Browns who have a ton of first round picks. Build the defense give Manning a second super bowl shot with a better defense that will get off the field, and give the offense more possessions.
relating to the picks question, not sure this requires an entire article, but I'll post it here (just tweeted it): If Colts let Mathis and Wayne walk, they're almost assured 2 additional 3rd-round picks (Compensatory), so with that in mind, they could be more aggressive this year. They can't trade compensatory picks, but they could trade later round picks from next year with that in mind.
I just tweeted a response, but to elaborate... the last couple of years, Polian (or was it Irsay?) has seemed to go up to the cap and selected players at positions where the following years' drafts had stronger candidates. Of course I can't think of any specific examples, but that's just a feeling I've had. The thing about GM is that you have to be future-minded... I wonder if Polian had become too obssessed with the here and now?
oh, that's a slightly different question than I thought.
I always thought one of Polian's best strengths was "drafting ahead of time." He would look at the Colts roster, understand which positions would be an issue in the next 3 years, and he would draft the BAP at those positions. Perhaps, in recent drafts, the immediate holes were simply too much for Bill to have an eye to the future or to be patient, etc... The talent drain from 10 years at 27th or whatever is significant. @LovinBlue
And was it Bill drafting or Chris? Chris' approach may have been more here and now to win, especially with Peyton coming to the end of his career. He may not have had the ability to see future needs dad did, and Caldwell too the last few years may have had a different take on how to draft @GregC @LovinBlue
Off topic, but does anyone know what we gave up draft pick wise to move up and get Ijalana last year? Did we give up a pick from last year, or this year?
our 2nd and 5th in 2011 for Jacksonvilles 2nd (Via Washington)
We have all of our picks this year@Peyton for President
@NYKings Thank you, Rohan. I try. Well, I try until I get some offer from another website, then I'm Bolting like Usain.
@ColtsAuth_Greg One thought on your piece. I hope the fanbase embraces Luck if he is drafted. I feel like people will hate him anyway b/c he
And on a side note. Not only are the writers on Colts Authority doing a great job, but the fans posts have been awesome as well. It is refreshing to read comments from such well informed, intelligent fans.
2 Like
I've been honored, impressed, delighted with the reader interaction we've had here, honestly. The reader blog posts have been front-page quality, the comments are thoughtful, and the feedback and suggestions have been amazing.
From that standpoint, the launch of the site has absolutely crushed my expectations. You guys have been amazing, and, while I can't speak for the rest of my colleagues, the interaction and feedback from you guys has definitely inspired me to strive to produce better work. Much <3 to all of you.
1 Like
Great article Greg. I'm definetly in the option one camp, although I don't think Wayne will come back regardless. When he said he wasn't going to make it easy on the Colts come contract time, I said my goodbyes. A new GM probably wouldn't want to overpay for Wayne because Wayne felt he was underpayed by the previous GM. I also don't necessarily agree that defense would have to be a top priority. The worst enemy off the 2011 Colts defense was a lackluster offense. When teams are trying to play keep up with Manning, it plays into what our D does best. I personally believe this years D would have been much better with 18 taking snaps. Don't get me wrong, the D definetly needs help, but I would rather make sure Peyton has the weapons he needs first. That strategy has served the Colts well in the past. I think at the end of the day the Colts just need some good football players regardless of which side of the ball they play. I hope they continue to draft the best player on there board rather than reach to fill perceived needs. One name you mentioned, Devon Still is a pick that scares me. I believe he had some pretty major injury issues his first couple years. The way the last couple years have gone with all the injuries, I hope the Colts try to avoid players that have had issues in college. Once again Greg, very good stuff.
If you go the "trade the pick" route, there are definitely a lot of sub-options available. The reason I named the Claiborne-Still route is it was a simple, clean way to illustrate my opinion that it would be simple to "fix" the defense - 3 draft picks (I didn't name a safety, because it won't be that easy to find a dynamic safety in this draft class) and, if you hit on those three - and the Claiborne pick seems like a pretty sure thing right now - your defensive concerns are alleviated for the near future.
I do agree that finding offensive help should be a priority, but I also believe that you can find offensive help later in the draft. First, I'm not a fan of drafting RBs in the first round. I realize the Colts have done it twice, but I feel like, unless you're getting that Adrian Peterson at the very top, you're much better off waiting until the 3rd round and finding replaceable RBs with a shelf life - ie RBs that will be fine for 3 years or so, and then you replace them with another 3rd round pick.
As far as WRs and TEs, just look at the majority of their offense this year: Garcon was a late round pick, Collie was a late round pick, and Tamme was a late round pick. I'm not saying this is the BEST way to go, but it is possible. Then, when you consider the fact that this draft is teeming with great WR talent, I think it's possible to focus on defense with your first 2 picks, and still pick up a great deal of offensive talent later if that's your desire.
Either way, lots of options for them. I do agree that surrounding the QB - Luck or Manning - with talent is important, but I do also think that, at some point, they need to have a pass defense that isn't comprised of a whose who of UDFAs.
haha, love the username and pic. Is there any team that's been more negatively affected by the lockout than the colts? Peyton may not have been able to play sans lockout, but the Colts would have been in a far better position to deal with it without the lockout situation, in my opinion. And now the contract situations this year are compounded by the new CBA. Oh, and, by the way, I'm guessing the Colts would love to be living in a cap-free world right about now. Remember, there were restrictions in the cap free world on how many UFAs you could sign, but not how many in-house FAs you could re-sign. Those rules would be perfect for this Colts team. @Freeneysalwaysheld
Thanks Greg. Great article btw. Awesome to see Coltzilla, Coltsider and 18to88 in one place.
If Manning is healthy I am 100% for option #1. If he is not though I am not sure if I am for option #2 or an unmentioned option #4. Option #4 would be to still trade the pick and pick up a good QB prospect with one of our 1st or 2nd round picks and still shore up the D. With the cap space we free up we could still be aggressive in picking up a decent free agent QB to tide us over until we see if our newly drafted QB would pan out. I am not optimistic enough to think we could get Flynn but there are still other good QB's out there who are back ups. If Manning is not healthy I think I am 50/50 at this point between option #2 and #4. If Luck ends up being as good as some think (he may - and I would go so far as to say probably - not be) or if he is the last good QB to come out of the draft for the next several years (he won't be) then it is a no brainier. However if he is not a top 3 QB - which means in the conversation with Manning, Rodgers, and Brees - I do not think his value is as high as the potential you would have with as many good picks that we would get from him.
Yea, there are probably 5 total options. #4 as you point out, going rebuild while trading the pick and, an option that Nate Dunlevy pointed out to me (probably to make me puke a little) - the option where the Colts do not cut manning regardless of his health at the Mar 8 deadline. The reason I left #4 and #5 out of the article is two-fold: 1) My mind was mush by word 5000, why push it to 6-7000 words? 2) I feel like those two situations are either unlikely (if they are drafting a QB in this draft, I feel 100% that it's Luck) or horrifically bad (you can't keep Manning if you aren't 100% sure he can play at a high level in 2012).
So yea, there are probably "sub options" for each of the main 3 paths. Your option 4 would work much like option 2, you would just go with QBX instead of Luck. Option 5 would work much like Option 3, but with the possibility of Luck being your starter in 2012 while you still pay Manning to, uh... really look sexy on the sidelines.
@GregC@LeviFuller Now I'm torn. I really like Manning looking sexy on the sideline...
(Of course I prefer Manning looking sexy on the field while throwing TD bombs, but that's not the point.)
What is our cap hit if we let go Peyton before March for 2012 and onwards? Does anyone know?
I look at it like, rebuilding can come faster with this rookie wage scale unlike before. What took 3-4 years to get a balanced team around Peyton might take just 2 years if Luck is as good as advertised, IMO
Great piece Greg!!! very well explain.
However I'm one of those moron who likes option 3!!
I believe that Manning if anything would not play for more than 2 years.
Not a moron, and sorry if I wrote it that way. I understand the sentiment, and perhaps in a cap-less, free agency-less world, it would be a better option. I just personally feel that, if the Colts go that route, it's going to significantly damage their ability to field a highly-competitive team now, and in the future. @JJ_COLTS
2 Like
very nice summary of the options
One thing though.. I am VERY leery of the all the hype luck is getting. QB's with the first pick are a real crap shoot. Of all those picked #1 or close to it since Peyton.. How many are starting in the NFL? Alex Smith and Cam Newton? Maybe Carson Palmer? And none of them are anywhere near Peyton (cam newton is far too early in his career to tell).
Pining all the hopes on Luck is very risky. I'd rather take the picks, and keep the current run going..
Here is my major problem with trading the number 1 pick:
Suppose we get 3 first rounders over the next three years for the Luck pick. That will give us 5 1st rounders in the next three years. We would really need to hit on all these picks to put the Colts in a place to compete for a SB in the short-term. If all of these picks hit, then 4-5 years from now they will all want big paydays. How many of these guys can you pay big money to on the open FA market? How many end up walking after their rookie contracts expire? It seems to me that if we trade the Luck pick for multiple high draft picks, we will not have a ton to show for it 4,5,6 years down the line. Meanwhile Luck will, by all accounts, be entering the prime of an extremely successful career.
I think people are sometimes too eager to play Fantasy Football in real life. Take the QB and be set at the most important position in sports for the next 12-15 years. Build from there.
one more thing, regarding all of the Colts young players becoming too expensive at once - their contracts wouldn't be up before the significant increase in salary cap. So I'd imagine the Colts would have enough room to deal with most, if not all, of those players.
I would also rather the Colts be in a position of having too much talent than not enough.
The team could also trade the number 1 pick, get 3 first rounders, then use those as currency to trade back in to the current draft.
I guess I don't understand how advocating any of these options is less 'fantasy football GM'-ish than the others.
It's impossible to sit here and say, "trade the pick for 5+ picks and hit on all 5", true. It's equally as hard to say, "rebuild with Luck and have 10-15 years of domination." And, frankly, it's every bit as hard to say, "Keep Manning, draft Luck, and massage the cap well enough so that you can remain in contention."
I'm not a capologist and I'm not a talent evaluator. I've laid out 3 options, it would be up to the "real GM" to pick one of those options and pull it off best. Isn't every "mock draft" playing fantasy GM?
Can you guarantee that Luck will be a Pro Bowl QB for 12-15 years?
You also don't seem to understand the option 1. It is the win now option. In that option you don't care what happens in 4-5 years. that's when your postponed rebuild starts.
2 Like
@Colin
I have to say that is an incredibly strange argument. I don't understand how hitting on 5 picks is a bad thing. Don't you think the team would be in a great spot, if they have to let one or two guys leave because they have too much talent on the roster?
Also, if you're worried about the salary cap, how could you want to pay 22-25 million to a guy for four years when you have a HOFer on the roster at his position? If Manning is healthy, it's a very real possibility that Luck doesn't see the field for those four seasons. Then, you have to resign him to a huge second contract which would probably be worth more than two or three of the contracts you were talking about being an issue. Kevin Kolb got 5 years and $63 million, and he was just a really good backup. How much would Luck command when he is available again? He would probably get $80-$90 million with little to no game experience. Now, you've committed $100+ million to a guy who is supposed to be great before you've actually seen him in
action. That's a bit more
unthinkable for me than
giving Manning a $28
million bonus.
Again, this is all assuming
he continues to progress in his rehab. Unless he has a setback, I can't see how Luck is the right option. I do understand people wanting to plan for the future, so I can see why people latch on to top QB prospects. I just can't see why people would want to put all of the eggs in the Luck basket when Peyton could provide 4 more quality seasons to find a replacement.
I totally agree with you. My favorite option is, with a healthy Manning of course, trade the pick for everything you can squeeze out of a team. They probably end up with 2-4 extra picks in the first 3 rounds this season. Then, 2-3 extras in the next season or two. That's a huge amount of talent to pass up for somebody who may not see the field for 5 years.
I'm also about championships. I remember games here and there from our great run. We have been going to the playoffs for a decade. My top 5 are the '06 AFC Championship, the Super Bowl win, the Super Bowl loss, benching the starters, and the loss to the Jets in the playoffs.
4 of my 5 were in Super Bowl seasons. The rest of the years mix together more and more as time passes. Those seasons have stuck with me, though.
The other thing I always tell my gung ho "draft Luck" friends is that I'll take 8 years of average teams for 1 Super Bowl. They always go wild about how unacceptable that is. I always remind them that the team with the most Super Bowls in history is Pittsburgh with 6. That means after this season they will have 40 years without a title. One title every 7 season (roughly). I will take one season I won't forget over a bunch that are going to mix together no matter how great the regular season was. Making one last run with Peyton is my vote. That gives us the best chance to win one in the next five years.
3 Like
Another home run, Greg. Wonderfully written and presented. Your summary of Freeney´s interesting quandary is eye-opening, and you just gave me a bright clue as to what to follow during the offseason.
As far as I´m concerned, things couldn´t be clearer. I harbor no doubts whatsoever that I want option 1. Healthy Manning? 100% behind that. Only if Manning isn´t healthy do I come to terms with option 2, and then it´s 2 all the way.
3 Like
What I don't understand is why in the world Andrew Luck would agree to come to the Colts if Manning is retained. Why come to the Colts when the Hall of Fame QB in front of him is signed for the next 4 years. Luck would be trying to negotiate a second deal, his first chance at a truly massive payday, with two or fewer years starting experience. It would be very hard to get an Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethilsberger type second contract with so little experience. Not to mention all the valuable in-game experience that he would miss out on.
It will be very interesting once Luck signs with an agent to see if they start playing hard ball.
1 Like
Not to mention the fact that Luck would be forced into an offense that was built to suit Manning's talents. If you take Luck, you have to go all in. Change the offense, and build it around what Luck does best. I think keeping both would not only hurt the franchise, but it would also be a huge setback for Luck. If Luck has earned the right to be chosen first overall, he has earned the right to have a team build around his talents. Don't ask this kid to fill Peyton's shoes. Nobody can or will.
@Peyton for President I agree with the article, but I don't think this is as much as a problem as you might think. After watching Luck in the Fiesta Bowl I believe that if any college QB has a chance to run a Peyton-tailored offense well, it's him-- he clearly showed he can read defenses like a pro (even if it is only OK State...) and call audibles at the line of scrimmage. The only real change that I see is that he is far more mobile than Peyton, which is why if we do end up taking him I definitely see him as comparable to Rodgers right now in an optimum scenario. At the same time, I think if Peyton is healthy, you have to keep him-- while I feel Luck is better suited than almost anyone else to run the type of offense Peyton does, I think the odds of him doing it better than a healthy peyton can for the next 4 years are slim to none, and I'd rather take the chance on him being a star for someone else than Peyton at the peak of his powers wearing a Jets/Redskins uniform for 4 years.
My favorite Chose Your Own Adventure books were the ones about the Civil War and the Titanic.
I'm sentimental. So any decision I'd make would include that. That's why I just write about it I suppose.
