The popular opinion is that keeping Manning and Luck would be the worst thing that this franchise could do. One non-salary cap/non-talent acquisition argument is that Manning won’t give Luck meaningful snaps, so how could he get better? I don't understand this argument.
How did Aaron Rodgers get better sitting behind Favre? Rodgers sat on the bench for three years. He comes out and is immediately elite, and after a year, playing at a hall of fame level. Rodgers got to the stratospheric level of Mannning, Brady and Brees and did it in his fifth season after just one full season starting. It took Manning 6 years, and Brady and Brees both 8 years to get to that level, with the latter two sitting their rookie year.
To reiterate, Peyton Manning started from day one, and it wasn’t until his sixth season that he was playing like a hall of famer. It took him longer than Rodgers even though he took EVERY MEANINGFUL SNAP!
Is there something that I’m missing here? Something that I’m overlooking? Why do people think that Andrew Luck will stagnate on the bench? If anything, he’ll have an opportunity to adjust to life in the NFL, become familiar with the offense, and gain the respect of his teammates without having to also shoulder the burden of starting for an NFL franchise.
the one situation of Rodgers proves only that it CAN happen, not that it will. It is impossible for any of us to know what WILL happen so all the Colts can do is do what THEY think gives them the best ODDS of success. All of the expressions of cosmic certitude, whether they come from Polian, Irsay, Grigson, Dunlevy or a first time poster from Kurdistan who has never seen a football game can be blown out of the water by Murphy's law. As evidence I give you Burlsworth and Pitcock. When you draft a kid, it is likely that among the last eventualities you take into account are dying before training camp and video game addiction. We should all use the three letters "IMO" a lot more in our posts to show that we recognize that we are only expressing our opinions which are NOT the same facts and offering as support evidence, not proof.
Any of the QB decisions CAN work out. Resigning Manning. cutting Manning and drafting Luck. Paying Manning and drafting Luck. Any could lead to success. But Irsay cant flip a coin. He has to make a call based on which course of action he believes has the highest odds of success. Unlike most fans, I am sure he understands it is a probabilistic exercise and will act accordingly. This also means he can make the right decision and have it yield the worst possible result. Sticking on 17 and hitting on 16 is the right move based on the odds but you can lose horribly doing the right thing..
If Manning resigns with the Colts with a more cap-friendly deal, then it's worthwhile. But you simply can't commit over 11 million a year to a 36 year old quarterback who has had four neck surgeries.
Ya, it seems the bonus and cap space is the issue. As Nate says, you don't cut a healthy manning. (Sorry omahacolt). Manning has the fan base, is likeable and is very very good. I'd much rather watch him take us to the playoffs every year than watch Luck slowly get better over three years.
The issue isn't that Luck wouldn't benefit, its that the combination of cap space and commitment of a #1/rd.1 pick wouldn't help manning. Essentially, the cost of carrying both wouldn't lead to a better team next year. Not to mention, many people think Luck is the most pro ready prospect in a while, which means that for one (or two or three) seasons, you'd have wasted to make the team better on the field.