The Peyton Manning Release Watch

[IndyColtsFan]

The Cleveland Browns are in Cleveland. Their history, colors, and name, remain in Cleveland. The Baltimore Colts are in Indy, their history, colors, and name are in Indy, not Baltimore. You're a bright guy, I'm not sure why you can't understand the difference. No one here wanted the Baltimore Browns, PRECISELY because of what happened with Indy. We wanted our own team, with our own history, colors, and name.

I do understand the difference, but what I am saying is that I'd wager to people in Cleveland, for example, that difference didn't matter and I doubt they were forgiving of Baltimore in those few years between teams.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Patently absurd? The NFL disagrees with you. The Cleveland Browns are not considered an expansion team. They were de-activated then re-activated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Cleveland_Browns Check the NFL's website. http://www.nfl.com/teams/clevelandbrowns/profile?team=CLE

Founded: 1946

Go check the stats. http://www.nfl.com/teams/clevelandbrowns/statistics?season=2011&team=CLE&seasonType= The records continue all the way back to 1946.

From the official site for the pro football hall of fame - http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.aspx?TeamAlias=cleveland-browns&InfoTab=Facts - Franchise granted: June 4, 1944 as Charter Member of AAFC

Baltimore Ravens - http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.aspx?TeamAlias=baltimore-ravens&InfoTab=Facts - Franchise Granted: February 9, 1996

I know all of this and the fact that technically, the Browns were deactivated. You know very well that it is just a technicality, however. Ask yourself this -- how do expansion teams generally get stocked with players their first year? Did the Ravens have to go that route? Did the "new" Browns?

Again, try to explain all of this to an angry Browns fan in the years between teams.

EDIT: I'm fine with agreeing to disagree and getting this thread back on topic. Sorry for the derail.

 

[JD50]

Listen, I wouldn't expect anyone from Indy to understand what the Baltimore Colts meant to the area. Indy is not a football town (not saying that's a bad thing), you guys just don't get it. There's a reason why the majority of the old Colts, lead by Johnny U, completely disowned the Colts when they moved to Indy.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that. I do understand why the fans would be pissed but it seems some still harbor irrational hatred of Indy.

 

[Gothgar]

...anyway. We saw this year that Alex Smith is a perfectly capable QB. Next year should be the first year that he has a consistent OC; a team--and a head coach--that are completely behind him. He's excellent on his feet and in the pocket, he clearly has a cannon when he needs it, and does have some deadly accuracy. He's got balls--holy shit 3rd and 8 in the 4th in the Divisional Playoff against NO? wow. He deserves another year. This is a fantastic team, and there is absolutely no reason to shake it up like that. The way that offense got clicking in the final quarter of the season is somewhat analogous to GreenBay's run last year leading up to the Super Bowl. SF had the D all year--without question, but suspect offense. I've said all year that Smith is the biggest problem, but I think his play at the end of the season and the playoffs shows that he deserves a shot.

I suppose Smith deserves another year. I hope he practices a lot in the of season, and feels that tinge that it could be him in the super bowl every time he throws a fucking ball.

He needs to want it bad, really bad. Because, regardless of the game losing mistakes made by Williams in that championship game, had Smith been able to put together one more drive for the Niners, those mistakes wouldn't have mattered at all. And they sure had a lot of opportunities to drive and score, but come third down, most of the time, the Niners Oh, just can hang.

 

[AstroManLuca]

...Indy Orioles shirts...

Why would Indianapolis, or any other city for that matter, want the Orioles? :biggrin:

 

[JD50]

I do understand the difference, but what I am saying is that I'd wager to people in Cleveland, for example, that difference didn't matter and I doubt they were forgiving of Baltimore in those few years between teams.

I can guarantee you that difference DOES matter. Go ask anyone in Cleveland if they'd be even more pissed off if Baltimore took the colors, history, and name.

I know all of this and the fact that technically, the Browns were deactivated. You know very well that it is just a technicality, however. Ask yourself this -- how do expansion teams generally get stocked with players their first year? Did the Ravens have to go that route? Did the "new" Browns?

No, it is not a technicality when the core of the debate revolves around one city taking the history, name, and colors from another city. Baltimore would've rather had an expansion team, we were snubbed repeatedly by Tags. Yea, it sucks having to start over with a new staff and players, but it's not even close to losing all of your history, and the colors and name of the team that you grew up watching. That's the point.

Again, try to explain all of this to an angry Browns fan in the years between teams.

I don't begrudge them for being mad, I would be too. I'm saying that it's completely different and not nearly as bad as what happened to Baltimore.

 

[Gothgar]

Why would Indianapolis, or any other city for that matter, want the Orioles? :biggrin:

:awe:

 

[JD50]

Why would Indianapolis, or any other city for that matter, want the Orioles? :biggrin:

Hey I never said it made sense...

But to be fair, when all that started the Orioles were pretty damn good.

 

[JD50]

We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that. I do understand why the fans would be pissed but it seems some still harbor irrational hatred of Indy.

That's fine. The only thing I really took issue with is you calling Baltimore a bunch of hypocrites when the difference between the Browns moving to Baltimore (while keeping the history, colors, and name in Cleveland) versus what Irsay did to Baltimore should be quite obvious.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

Orioles used to be named the Browns so we had partial ownership of the name already.

 

[Linflas]

No, we did not. The key difference being we have the Balitmore Ravens, not the Baltimore Browns. No one here wanted the Browns. Cleveland still has the Browns.

But that really has more to do with the bitterness on both sides in the aftermath of the move than anything else. In the Cleveland situation they were astute enough to make this demand as a part of an overall agreement to allow the franchise to move. I'm pretty sure I read someplace that they did try to do this exact negotiation with the Colts but after all the post move nastiness Irsay said it would be a cold day in hell before that would take place.

Edit: IndyColtsFan if you really want to understand the passion Baltimore had for the Colts watch the movie Diner sometime. Hell I was raised from birth as a Colts fan even though I have lived in Virginia in the DC metro area my entire life. One of my first acts of "rebellion" against my father was to start following the Dolphins when Shula moved there yet I still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news of "the move".

 

[sactoking]

The writing in on the wall, Peyton is gone.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/26/irsay-calls-peyton-manning-a-politician/

Irsay gripes that Manning should keep his comments "in house". Then Irsay calls Manning a "politician" which in the context likely means 'oily, two-talking, SOB'. Then they guy from the Star that both Manning and Irsay were talking to says "When Irsay said 'Manning will be a Colt if he's healthy' Irsay knew he wouldn't be healthy."

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Just came to post this sacto. All I can say is FUCK.

 

[waggy]

is it really a suprise? seems the most logical (from business) standpoint is to trade payton. He will make a huge impact for a year or two on whatever team he goes to (if he don't flat out retire..wich won't suprise me either).


edit: i have always hated the colts but thought manning was a great QB. Same with the Packers. i HATE them. but thought Farve and rogers are great QB's.

 

[zinfamous]

is it really a suprise? seems the most logical (from business) standpoint is to trade payton. He will make a huge impact for a year or two on whatever team he goes to (if he don't flat out retire..wich won't suprise me either).


edit: i have always hated the colts but thought manning was a great QB. Same with the Packers. i HATE them. but thought Farve and rogers are great QB's.

But they can't trade Peyton, right?

 

[vi edit]

Manning won't play another game a Colt. The real question is does he ever play another game again. Both sides had/have an opportunity to gracefully end this relationship, but it looks like it's going to be an ugly one.

Releasing him just makes far too much sense from a business standpoint. That's over 50 million they save. That's A LOT of money that can be redirected to rebuilding and not spent on a QB who seriously is at the end of his career. Even if 100% healthy his career is in the waning years of productive use, even for a career pocket passer. It's just too much of a burden on a rapidly aging team that needs some youth and a major retooling from top to bottom.

They grab Luck, let him sit behind Orlovsky for a season or two, rebuild via some more draft picks/free agency and then get back into the swing of things.

It's just not a fan/marketing friendly decision. "Rebuild" is a dirty word..even if it's a necessary one.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

But they can't trade Peyton, right?

They can, but no team will likely take his current contract.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Manning won't play another game a Colt. The real question is does he ever play another game again. Both sides had/have an opportunity to gracefully end this relationship, but it looks like it's going to be an ugly one.

Releasing him just makes far too much sense from a business standpoint. That's over 50 million they save. That's A LOT of money that can be redirected to rebuilding and not spent on a QB who seriously is at the end of his career. Even if 100% healthy his career is in the waning years of productive use, even for a career pocket passer. It's just too much of a burden on a rapidly aging team that needs some youth and a major retooling from top to bottom.

They grab Luck, let him sit behind Orlovsky for a season or two, rebuild via some more draft picks/free agency and then get back into the swing of things.

It's just not a fan/marketing friendly decision. "Rebuild" is a dirty word..even if it's a necessary one.

Luck won't sit. He'll be an opening day starter unless Orlovsky completely blows him away in camp.

 

[Gothgar]

Luck won't sit. He'll be an opening day starter unless Orlovsky completely blows him away in camp.

Unlikely is my guess on that one

 

[vi edit]

They can, but no team will likely take his current contract.

That's one thing I've *never* understood about professional sports. How did we ever get to the point where players get paid more and more and more as they get older? Almost every single position hits an age plateau and then starts to to drop off, drastically for some positions. It's only once they are free agents does their real value get reevaluated and a more reasonable salary assessed for way over the hill veterans.

Contracts almost need to be structured to peak at a certain point and then start dropping off unless certain performance measures are met.

It's reasons like the Manning deal or the Albert Pujols 10 year insanity in LA that make me have little sympathy for owners. They agree to the deals.

 

[Hacp]

The colts will be embarrassed when Manning wins a ring with the Broncos next year and andrew luck turns out to be a dud.

 

[manly]

Unlikely is my guess on that one

based on what? I'm not a CFB junkie but based on the Fiesta Bowl, Andrew Luck is as ready as any #1 draft pick I've ever seen.

That's one thing I've *never* understood about professional sports. How did we ever get to the point where players get paid more and more and more as they get older? Almost every single position hits an age plateau and then starts to to drop off, drastically for some positions. It's only once they are free agents does their real value get reevaluated and a more reasonable salary assessed for way over the hill veterans.

Contracts almost need to be structured to peak at a certain point and then start dropping off unless certain performance measures are met.

It's reasons like the Manning deal or the Albert Pujols 10 year insanity in LA that make me have little sympathy for owners. They agree to the deals.

there are plenty of different factors, but it's a free market for players services.

Super agents have a lot of clout and strangely enough, front offices do get desperate. Personally I think Pujols will age more "gracefully" than Prince Fielder will but at the end of the day, it's just a hunch. If as a GM, you insist on paying a conservative "fair value" and not a penny more, you'll never be able to attract an elite free agent.

As for PM specifically, if everybody a year ago agrees he's still an elite QB and he's asking for Tom Brady money ($18M avg) and no more, how can the Colts say no? In 20/20 hindsight, they look dumb as hell for front-loading the deal but foresight is a lot muddier.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Update: Manning responds to Irsay's comments today:

"At this point, Mr. Irsay and I owe it to each other and to the fans of the organization to handle this appropriately and professionally, and I think we will. I've already reached out to Mr. Irsay. I wasn't trying to paint the Colts in a bad light, but it's tough when so many people you've known for so long are suddenly leaving. I feel very close to a lot of these guys and we've done great things together. It's hard to watch an old friend clean out his office. That's all I was trying to say.

More here:

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...anning?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|IndyStar.com

 

[IAteYourMother]

That's one thing I've *never* understood about professional sports. How did we ever get to the point where players get paid more and more and more as they get older? Almost every single position hits an age plateau and then starts to to drop off, drastically for some positions. It's only once they are free agents does their real value get reevaluated and a more reasonable salary assessed for way over the hill veterans.

Contracts almost need to be structured to peak at a certain point and then start dropping off unless certain performance measures are met.

It's reasons like the Manning deal or the Albert Pujols 10 year insanity in LA that make me have little sympathy for owners. They agree to the deals.

backloading makes more economic sense. If you're paying someone 200 million over 10 years, you'd rather pay him more of it at the end. It makes even more sense in football, where you can cut players toward the end of the contract.

 

[Wreckem]

backloading makes more economic sense. If you're paying someone 200 million over 10 years, you'd rather pay him more of it at the end. It makes even more sense in football, where you can cut players toward the end of the contract.

NFL players and the NFLPA would never signoff on backloading because of that reason. The money isn't garunteed like in MLB where backloading is always done and teams are still paying players well beyond the years on the contract.