Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Indianapolis' Big Decision


The Indianapolis Colts returned to their former misery this season, going 2-14 with Curtis Painter at the helm of things. It was a sad year in Indy, for a franchise that has been as good as any in the NFL for the past decade. Now, Colts ownership has decided to make some changes. It began with the firing of General Manager Bill Polian and then head coach Jim Caldwell, but it does not appear to be ending there. In an interview with the Indianapolis Star Manning said he has no idea what his future holds.

According to the article, Owner Jim Irsay will make the call on whether or not Manning will be staying in Indy. While hearing about this entire Manning saga throughout the football season, I've been surprised to hear that Manning not returning was a possibility, because I believe Manning is the greatest quarterback ever. But, of course, there is more to the issue than that.

Manning has a $28 million option that Colts would have to pick up next year if they choose to keep him around, a much higher amount of money than they would have to pay someone like, Andrew Luck. Perhaps that gives them the ability to go out and get some other much-needed talent at other spots on the field. But any situation in which Manning goes and Luck comes in is about the Colts playing the long game. There is very little debate over which QB would lead Indy to a better record in 2012. The real question Irsay is going to have to answer in making his decision, though, is whether or not Andrew Luck can actually be a franchise quarterback.

If you listen to Mel Kiper, Jr. and Todd McShay, the answer is an overwhelming yes. Luck is purported to be the best quarterback prospect since, well, Peyton Manning. Perhaps is because I lived in Ohio and therefore haven't gotten to see much of Luck play, but I haven't bought into his NFL hype just yet. What about Luck screams that he is a can't-miss type of player? I haven't seen it. His numbers in college are good, but not great. His junior season was stronger than his senior season. So why is a guy who may have regressed in college going to be one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL three years from now? I don't know. More importantly, why do we think he's going to be as good or better than Manning will be three years from now? Or ever?

When the Packers got rid of Brett Favre, I was conflicted out of love for Favre, but ultimately believed it was the right move. It didn't look like he had anything left. (This of course proved to be wrong, as he had a phenomenal season in Minnesota two years later). But at the time, Favre was looking very old and worn out. And the Packers had a guy who they had stolen in the draft (Aaron Rodgers was the 24th overall pick after being the potential first pick, which went to Alex Smith), and had then sat for three years learning. Now the Colts have a guy significantly younger than Favre was at the time (granted, coming off a serious injury), and their other option is a guy who, despite all the hype, is a question mark. The Packers organization had at least seen Rodgers in practice and preseason games; the Colts haven't had that luxury. Is it really worth dropping your franchise's greatest player ever to get a question mark?

What about trading the draft pick? Then using the (supposedly) four picks you would get out of it to build around Manning again? Doesn't that make more sense for getting back into the thick of things in the AFC than getting Luck does?

I won't pretend to have all the right answers. Jim Irsay has done a pretty admirable job in recent years having a competitive team. I just hate investing a team's future on a draft pick of a quarterback, the toughest position to evaluate in all of sports. A guy can have everything you think you need, and just never make the transition (Ryan Leaf). He can look iffy at the workouts and testings, then come in and play extremely well, and still fall apart somewhere down the road (Vince Young). And sometimes, the guy you drafted just to play backup or third string for you for four years turns about to be the guy you needed all along (Tom Brady). I'm all for a franchise moving forward, but not unless it absolutely has to. To me, it doesn't feel like the Colts have to.

2 comments:

  1. I would also think they need to keep the fan's reactions in mind. Obviously, the fans will have a lot to say no matter what, and they will change their opinions on whether it was right or not as often as the Colts fortunes change.

    But, doesn't everyone pretty much love Peyton Manning? He's talented, a really good leader, and seems to be pretty established as the heart, head, and soul of Indy. I wonder about the backlash to dropping Peyton Manning.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nate,
    Certainly a major factor in all of this is the $28 million bonus due to Peyton Manning if he is still with the team in early March. If he is not with the team, they don't pay him. As an owner, you cannot justify paying the guy that amount of money IF he is not healthy. Peyton is battling a nerve injury and my understanding is there is no timetable for it to get better. It is not like a broken arm or a torn ACL. So the Colts have to decide, do I pay him $28 million and HOPE he gets better? I wonder if he did have a more common injury if the Colts' position would be different.

    ReplyDelete