“With Griffin and Luck and the way it’s shaping up at the top of the draft – could very likely go one and two like with Peyton and Ryan Leaf,” Irsay said in an interview with ESPN’s Hannah Storm. “It’s most likely one of those quarterbacks that you really feel is the best player in the draft, and where we’re at moving forward you can’t pass that up. I don’t think anyone would expect that.”
He says he is drafting Luck because he needs a quarterback. I think its obvious from the Caldwell press conference and all the changes that are being made that Manning is finished.
If Peyton never plays another down, and Luck goes on to a Hall of Fame career... I will be saddened (for Peyton) and relieved (for Luck) but I will never forget how stupid this is.
When Irsay says "I don't think anyone would expect that. (Pass up a QB) I just want to scream!!! If you have a healthy Manning, I don't think any reasonable person would expect you to waste the pick on a QB!!!!!!!
This frustrates me to no end, because (unless, again, this is the biggest bluff ever) it gives me nothing to root for. I can't in good conscience root for Peyton to get healthy and resign with the Colts if they are just going to waste his last four years by having Luck on the roster.
i don't care what Colts fans think of...
Not going for the Perfect Season
Any other damn thing
Unless this is part of the greatest bluff in NFL history... this statement should outrage Colts fans more than ANYTHING in the entire history of the team being in Indy Obviously the key word is "healthy"... but Irsay's sentiment is indefensible.
It makes no sense to say anything publicly other than they're going for Luck. It just gives him more leverage. One of the biggest rules of negotiation is letting the other party make the proposal first. If another team desperately wants Luck *cough*BROWNS!!!*cough*, then hopefully they'll think, "dang, Irsay's really into this guy. We'd better put up a pretty good offer!". Bottom line is we won't know anything for sure until draft day.
@Fondue I mentioned that I hope you are right and this is the greatest bluff in NFL history. But I am not optimistic as there are too many people spouting this company line.
@DougEngland Indefensible? Why do you feel that way? I need to understand why you are calling for my outrage...
It is indefensible for many reasons... but the main and most obvious is:
Paying Peyton only makes financial sense if you are getting the full four years out of him. And there is no way Luck is sitting behind Peyton for four years.
@javen@DougEngland 1. Some of them did miss major time late in their 30s, whole seasons in fact. That's not unusual. They still bounced back. In fact, I won't be surprised to see 18 retire, and then come back in a year and still be good.
2. If by regress you mean "fall off the table entirely" then we don't disagree.
If Manning plays he'll either be Peyton Manning as we know him or something so hobbled and terrible that it's unrecognizable. What he won't be is "Peyton Manning Lite".
@Nate Dunlevy@DougEngland I would argue that none of those QBs had the injuries and the time off that Manning had. Warner's injuries were many but none of the truly major kind. Manning at age 36, with his history, is a more likely case of not being able to play any more. In a vacuum, he it would make sense to see what he has left. To bet a $30 million cap hit on his health and effectiveness is crazy.
Joe Posnanski has talked about "regression" in baseball and I'm pretty sure his conclusions were that players don't regress gradually but dramatically. It was in an article recently on players due to bounce back after poor years. Players don't go from 40 to 30 to 20 home runs, more like from 40 to 15.
@Sinn0331@DougEngland I agree with this. The last 14 years have been amazing. Not only were the Colts good they were exciting. Almost exclusively because of Manning. Especially after years and years of mostly terrible football. I think a good case can be made that Manning has meant more to his franchise than any QB in history.
@DougEngland@javen I wholeheartedly agree with you, DougEngland. The Colts´ incredible success these last 13 years has been predicated on realizing Peyton´s uniqueness in NFL history and building an offense that would synchronize with his skills, discarding any half-assed plan B in the process. Telling us that you´re gonna keep depending on a healthy Manning but change the whole system around him makes no sense, and it makes even less sense when you realize the reason they´re changing the system is because of a player in the same spot as 18. Luck is not a plan B, he´s not a plan A', he´s not a future plan.
@javen I wholeheartedly admit that I am very biased to Peyton, and want more than anything for him to be healthy and to be a Colt.
But what I want to make most clear... is that what I am truly against is the idea of having both Manning and Luck on the team. This makes no sense for Manning, Luck or most importantly the Colts.
@javen@DougEngland They often just quit because they get so banged up that they drop off a cliff. There's no slow regression like baseball. Many are elite up until they aren't. Warner, Favre, Elway, Young...none had any real regression. They just suddenly couldn't play any more. There can be one 'hanging on' season, but it's not typically a slow down. It's more like a cliff. Even as they lose arm strength, they tend to be so much smarter as they get older that the drop off in play level isn't great. Style change might be necessary however.
@javen@DougEngland For me it's more that Peyton Manning is something more than just a really good quarterback. He managed to play in a way hadn't been played before. His ability to read defense and respond accordingly existed at a level beyond that of other quarterbacks. I love watching the Colts win, and I'll love watching them win with Andrew Luck, if it happens to fall that way. But more than that I liked watching the WAY that Manning played football, and even if Andrew Luck is a great QB, it's very highly unlikely that he'll be able to play the way that Peyton did. That is what I will miss if he can't play for the Colts anymore
@Sinn0331@DougEngland I've been a Colts for a long, long time. I've some highs and many, many lows. Maybe that's why I am ready to move on without Manning. I get a sense that many Colt's fans are fans of Manning as much as they are of the Colt's and want to hang onto his era as long as possible. Even, in my opinion, when it is not logical or prudent to do so.
@Nate Dunlevy@DougEngland I know you've done some work on QBs and the age issue and I'd be interested in seeing a link. Age alone is only one factor with Manning. It's injury, time off and age that puts his future production in question. Throw in the salary cap issue and its hard to make a case for keeping him on the roster. Having Luck sitting there, even more so.
If QBS really don't regress until they do why do they stop playing? Is there anything in the study that suggests an age when QBs can't play any more?
I was pretty sure he was going to come back healthy, but with the coaching/gm changes... none of that makes sense to me if he can really come back. I've been trying to stay optimistic about a return for months, constantly throwing everything you've reported by the wayside and finding glimmers of hope, I just can't keep it up anymore. I wish you weren't right Nate... just don't think that's the case. @Nate Dunlevy @javen @DougEngland
That's a common myth. They actually tend not to. They play well right up until the moment they don't. I don't believe Manning will ever play again, but if he does and he's anything resembling healthy, he will be Peyton Manning. He only regresses if he's so injured that he isn't recognizable as himself.
The bottom line is that Manning isn't coming back because he's not going to be healthy, and the team just doesn't want to say that.
Declaring interest in Luck is necessary, regardless of whether they will draft him or not. His neck IS healed unless they are flat out lying, which I do not think they are. They may make misleading statements, but saying, "his neck is fuzed' if it is not would be beyond the organization. The thing that I think is important to remember is that if Peyton comes back near 100%(which he very well could) you don't HAVE to hit dead on with all your draft picks. We know that his play can cover up some things in the area of Wide receiver, for example. Also as long as Peyton's offensive scheme isn't changed too much, you don't even really have to hit with a head coach! It certainly would help, but it's not AS necessary. If you miss with everything that's got to be put around Luck, you run the risk of ruining his career. Look at Alex Smith. He's not fantastic now, but he's having some success, because of the change in coaching scheme. He could've had the success at the beginning of his career. I think the bigger issue with Peyton is money, honestly. I think Irsay is only now realizing that you just can't pay people that much money, at least until the cap goes up, and still be able to build a team. @javen @DougEngland
@DougEngland If the Colts thought he was healthy or was going to regain his form I doubt they would clean house and declare their love for LUCK. Irsay's frequent use of the word "rebuilding" indicates to me that they are starting over because they have to start over.
I don't understand the logic in trying to move forward with a 36 year old quarterback with an injury history like his. Even if his neck is healed and his nerve regenerates ( 2 very big ifs) QBs his age don't get better, they regress, and some fasters than others. All these great players the Colts will get from a Luck trade aren't going to be ready for at least a year or two. And that assumes they hit on a number of picks. At that point the Colts QB is 38 or 39 and Luck will be entering the begining of what should be a great career.
@javen First of all, if he is not healthy, all of this is moot. But if, and I know most people are saying it is a big if, but if Peyton is healthy this is why I would pay Peyton:
(1) I hate the three neck surgeries argument. My understanding is he is in no more danger from his neck than any other QB.
(2) Peyton wants to play. He wants to be a Colt. He is focused and more dedicated than ever.
(3) 4 years is an enternity in the NFL. I believe if you traded the #1 pick and had a healthy Peyton, the Colts would be a guaranteed playoff team and viable Super Bowl contender for that whole span.
Those are the reasonable arguments. But I admit, I would rather have Peyton at any percentage of health than anybody else.
@DougEngland but how can you pay $28 million to a 36 year old quarterback with 3 neck surgeries? Paying him is not in the best interests of the franchise.