What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Peyton Manning won't delay $28M bonus (1 Viewer)

'moderated said:
Manning is selfish ##### and he is the reason the colts couldn't get quality pieces to put around him.I hope he never plays again.
Stat whore can't get Favre's records so he is taking the cash instead. Greedy *******.
 
'The_Man said:
Manning is not coming to Baltimore. They're going to have to franchise Rice this year (or give him a long-term deal) and work hard to keep RG Ben Grubbs under the cap, and figure out what to do at C if/when Matt Birk retires. Flacco is in the last year of his rookie deal next year and the team is committed to him for next year, and I think the long term after that.

They can't afford Manning, plus they've gone this route before with Grbac and then McNair and now they want to groom and keep their own long-term guy. If anyone is gone next year, it's Cam Cameron, not Flacco.
Isn't Jeff Saturday a free agent? He might want to end his career with one more season playing with Manning.
 
'Reaper said:
Manning owes the Jets....That 1997 Draft royally screwed the Jets. Jets get the #1 pick with All-World value that turned into just another draft when Peyton stayed in school.Granted I also blame Parcells.
Blame him for getting the Jets from 1-15 to 9-7 and a HB option pass away from the playoff in year 1?Blame him for a AFC championship game the next year and losing to the eventual champs in DEN?Blame him for an 8-8 year after Vinny goes down game 1, and he uses Ray Lucas and a 6-3 record get to 8-8?Jets had TONS of holes, he used the #1 pick to fill the holes instead of plugging in Orlando Pace.He knew he would not be there for 10 years.Pace was a HOF, but who knows what he does on a poor Jets team
 
I like the Chiefs for a landing spot. I think his agent is based in KC and there is a lot of talent on the field next season.

 
'Reaper said:
Manning owes the Jets....That 1997 Draft royally screwed the Jets. Jets get the #1 pick with All-World value that turned into just another draft when Peyton stayed in school.Granted I also blame Parcells.
Yeah but would the Jets have drafted Manning? It seemed like Parcells was determined to trade that pick for multiple players.Still, it's interesting to see how Manning's choice in 1997 affected so many franchises -- the Colts, the Jets, the Rams (who got the #1 pick), and the Seahawks (who got Walter Jones as part of the deal) were all directly affected, but there's also an infinite number of indirect things that would could have gone differently (maybe Bill Belichick stays with the Jets if Manning is on the team?)
 
'Reaper said:
Manning owes the Jets....

That 1997 Draft royally screwed the Jets. Jets get the #1 pick with All-World value that turned into just another draft when Peyton stayed in school.

Granted I also blame Parcells.
Blame him for getting the Jets from 1-15 to 9-7 and a HB option pass away from the playoff in year 1?Blame him for a AFC championship game the next year and losing to the eventual champs in DEN?

Blame him for an 8-8 year after Vinny goes down game 1, and he uses Ray Lucas and a 6-3 record get to 8-8?

Jets had TONS of holes, he used the #1 pick to fill the holes instead of plugging in Orlando Pace.

He knew he would not be there for 10 years.

Pace was a HOF, but who knows what he does on a poor Jets team
The first trade down was fine but he traded Walter Jones for Farrior (who did nothing with the Jets) and Leon Johnson.
 
'Bayhawks said:
'humpback said:
Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.
There is a lot of talk about the Colts not being able to tie up so much money in 1 position (if they keep Manning AND use the #1 pick on a QB). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luck's contract would be very similar to Cam Newton's right? That was 5 years, $22 Million total, wasn't it? Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap. That, plus Luck's $4M-$5M against the cap is not impossible to work around.
That would be about 42 mill or more in up front money Irsay would have to pay out for a position where one of them is sitting. No way.
 
If he was healthy or thought he could be healthy enough to play again this whole thing wouldn't be so mysterious. He would be at least discussing his ability to play at a high level still even if he can't workout/show it.

He is done playing IMO and he knows it and Colts know it.

 
'Bayhawks said:
'humpback said:
Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.
There is a lot of talk about the Colts not being able to tie up so much money in 1 position (if they keep Manning AND use the #1 pick on a QB). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luck's contract would be very similar to Cam Newton's right? That was 5 years, $22 Million total, wasn't it? Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap. That, plus Luck's $4M-$5M against the cap is not impossible to work around.
That would be about 42 mill or more in up front money Irsay would have to pay out for a position where one of them is sitting. ]No way.
Why-they wouldn't be spending any more money on the QB position than they did this year.Say Luck gets 20% more than Cam. That's a little under $27M over 4 years (or was it 5?) or $6.75M/year (assuming 4 years). Peyton's cap hit (if the Colts give him his bonus) is $16M. So $16M plus about $7M means they'd have $23M invested in their QB position.

In 2011, Peyton was paid $23M, plus the Colts paid Collins $4M (salary plus guaranteed bonus). So, last year, they had AT LEAST $27M invested in their QB position (plus what they paid Orlovsky and Painter). So, if the Colts keep Manning and draft Luck, they won't be spending any more on the QB position than they did in 2011. Why wouldn't Irsay do that?

 
'Bayhawks said:
'humpback said:
Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.
There is a lot of talk about the Colts not being able to tie up so much money in 1 position (if they keep Manning AND use the #1 pick on a QB). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luck's contract would be very similar to Cam Newton's right? That was 5 years, $22 Million total, wasn't it? Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap. That, plus Luck's $4M-$5M against the cap is not impossible to work around.
That would be about 42 mill or more in up front money Irsay would have to pay out for a position where one of them is sitting. ]No way.
Why-they wouldn't be spending any more money on the QB position than they did this year.Say Luck gets 20% more than Cam. That's a little under $27M over 4 years (or was it 5?) or $6.75M/year (assuming 4 years). Peyton's cap hit (if the Colts give him his bonus) is $16M. So $16M plus about $7M means they'd have $23M invested in their QB position.

In 2011, Peyton was paid $23M, plus the Colts paid Collins $4M (salary plus guaranteed bonus). So, last year, they had AT LEAST $27M invested in their QB position (plus what they paid Orlovsky and Painter). So, if the Colts keep Manning and draft Luck, they won't be spending any more on the QB position than they did in 2011. Why wouldn't Irsay do that?
Why are you only counting the cap number for next year, but the total amount paid last year? The amount of cash they'd have to pay out to Peyton and Luck would be a lot more than $23M, and more than they paid last year. Haven't looked it up, but I'd assume it would be more than any other team in the NFL, and it just doesn't make sense for a team with so many holes to have that much tied up at one position.That being said, I don't think it would be impossible IF he were willing to move the deadline for the bonus back. Since he said he won't, I don't see any way the Colts can commit that much money without knowing if he's even going to be able to take the field, especially considering they are going to have Luck.

 
Putting aside whether the Vikings want Manning for now. Why would Manning want to get beat up like Favre did behind the Vikings Oline? I think he will have better options.

 
'Carver said:
Gonna be funny watching the hay-seeds turn on Peyton now that they tanked the season for Andrew Luck.
What hay-seeds? Even teams that have played in his division have a healthy amount of respect for Manning. I'm far from a Colts fan but if you love football you have to be a Peyton fan.
 
'Jason Wood said:
I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.
Your impressed? Why?He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.
 
'Jason Wood said:
I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.

He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.

It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.
Your impressed? Why?

He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.

Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?

Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.

Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.

First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.
Funny post considering Tom Brady is the highest paid QB and Manning got credit for taking last money last year to allow the Colts to spend more on other players.Is it just coincidence that the Patriots haven't won a Superbowl since Brady signed his 2005 contract?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Jason Wood said:
I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.
Your impressed? Why?He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.
So you're saying if a player is injured, he should give back the money the team owes him? Can you point to examples where this occurs with any regularity?
 
'Jason Wood said:
I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.

He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.

It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.
Your impressed? Why?

He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.

Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?

Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.



Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.

First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.
It is? You sound like the guy that said Big Ben's nickname is Brittle Ben, and just pulled it out of his ###. You like pulling stuff out of your ### too, I guess.
 
'Jason Wood said:
I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.
Your impressed? Why?He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.
Got nothing in return? Are you really saying the Colts got nothing in return from Manning? Really?
 
'Reaper said:
Manning owes the Jets....That 1997 Draft royally screwed the Jets. Jets get the #1 pick with All-World value that turned into just another draft when Peyton stayed in school.Granted I also blame Parcells.
Yeah but would the Jets have drafted Manning? It seemed like Parcells was determined to trade that pick for multiple players.Still, it's interesting to see how Manning's choice in 1997 affected so many franchises -- the Colts, the Jets, the Rams (who got the #1 pick), and the Seahawks (who got Walter Jones as part of the deal) were all directly affected, but there's also an infinite number of indirect things that would could have gone differently (maybe Bill Belichick stays with the Jets if Manning is on the team?)
Thought at the time it would be foolish not to take Manning...But, either way, the value of that pick pretty much crashed once Manning was out.He would have had a much bigger haul with Manning involved.
 
This is going to be very interesting. Can't imagine IND paying that roster bonus. You aren't going to contend even with Manning at QB, so you might as well release him and use the cap space to rebuild. It's too bad it had to end that way. Makes Manning look kind of selfish, but if he is indeed healthy to play next year, why not play for a contender?

I think Manning will either sign with Miami, NYJ, AZ or he will retire. These 3 teams make most sense....in that order IMO. KC would be an interesting spot, but what's Cassel's contract like? Didn't he sign some big deal with KC in 2009? Can't see SF or BAL signing him, especially if they get to the Super Bowl. WAS likely won't go after him since they could trade up and get RGIII.

Imagine Brandon Marshall or Larry Fitzergald or even Santonio Holmes with Manning at QB. Marshall would be a top 5WR, Fitzgerald joins Calvin in that exclusive all world WR tier, and Holmes becomes a top 10 WR, or at worst a strong WR2.

 
'Bayhawks said:
'humpback said:
Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.
There is a lot of talk about the Colts not being able to tie up so much money in 1 position (if they keep Manning AND use the #1 pick on a QB). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luck's contract would be very similar to Cam Newton's right? That was 5 years, $22 Million total, wasn't it? Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap. That, plus Luck's $4M-$5M against the cap is not impossible to work around.
That would be about 42 mill or more in up front money Irsay would have to pay out for a position where one of them is sitting. ]No way.
Why-they wouldn't be spending any more money on the QB position than they did this year.Say Luck gets 20% more than Cam. That's a little under $27M over 4 years (or was it 5?) or $6.75M/year (assuming 4 years). Peyton's cap hit (if the Colts give him his bonus) is $16M. So $16M plus about $7M means they'd have $23M invested in their QB position.

In 2011, Peyton was paid $23M, plus the Colts paid Collins $4M (salary plus guaranteed bonus). So, last year, they had AT LEAST $27M invested in their QB position (plus what they paid Orlovsky and Painter). So, if the Colts keep Manning and draft Luck, they won't be spending any more on the QB position than they did in 2011. Why wouldn't Irsay do that?
Why are you only counting the cap number for next year, but the total amount paid last year?
Because the cap number is (to the best of my understanding) the player's salary, plus any bonus money earned that is applied to the cap for that year. Peyton's salary for next year is less than $8M, but part of the $28M bonus would be applied to that year, making the total cap number $16M. Last year, his SALARY was $23M, so his cap hit was $23M.
The amount of cash they'd have to pay out to Peyton and Luck would be a lot more than $23M, and more than they paid last year.
No, it wouldn't (unless there's something I'm missing), and that's my point. People who keep saying the Colts can't tie that much money up at QB are wrong, they already have.
it just doesn't make sense for a team with so many holes to have that much tied up at one position.
This is another issue completely, but one I think they (& other teams with expensive QBs) are able to work around.
 
'Reaper said:
Manning owes the Jets....That 1997 Draft royally screwed the Jets. Jets get the #1 pick with All-World value that turned into just another draft when Peyton stayed in school.Granted I also blame Parcells.
Blame him for getting the Jets from 1-15 to 9-7 and a HB option pass away from the playoff in year 1?Blame him for a AFC championship game the next year and losing to the eventual champs in DEN?Blame him for an 8-8 year after Vinny goes down game 1, and he uses Ray Lucas and a 6-3 record get to 8-8?Jets had TONS of holes, he used the #1 pick to fill the holes instead of plugging in Orlando Pace.He knew he would not be there for 10 years.Pace was a HOF, but who knows what he does on a poor Jets team
I don't see that draft haul as being the main catalyst behind much. You speak as if the Jets wouldn't have filled any holes without the trade... They still had picks and could have walked away with Ferguson, Leon and filled holes WITH Walter Jones, Pace or Manning.IMO, Parcells learned a lesson and the next shot he had at adding a franchise LT in Miami he did it. He also wanted nothing to do with Vinny and stepped in #### on that one.To me, Manning was like Andrew Luck in this draft and supposedly Parcels ego got in the way and he wouldn't promise the Mannings anything. Drafting a Luck or Manning is a once in a lifetime opportunity - I would have wanted Parcells to get on his knees For PM. Yeah, I blame Parcells - he did well with what he had but, the course of this franchise and it's history with crappy QB's could have been on a whole other plane......Sheesh, look at the Colts - Talk about holes to fill and a team that was exposed and they might still have Manning yet they won't flinch when the opportunity for a top level Franchise QB is within their reach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Jason Wood said:
I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.
Your impressed? Why?He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.
So you're saying if a player is injured, he should give back the money the team owes him? Can you point to examples where this occurs with any regularity?
That's not even close to what he said. He said you'd think Peyton would be more interested in working with the people he sucked 20 million from for doing essentially nothing.
 
'Reaper said:
Manning owes the Jets....That 1997 Draft royally screwed the Jets. Jets get the #1 pick with All-World value that turned into just another draft when Peyton stayed in school.Granted I also blame Parcells.
Blame him for getting the Jets from 1-15 to 9-7 and a HB option pass away from the playoff in year 1?Blame him for a AFC championship game the next year and losing to the eventual champs in DEN?Blame him for an 8-8 year after Vinny goes down game 1, and he uses Ray Lucas and a 6-3 record get to 8-8?Jets had TONS of holes, he used the #1 pick to fill the holes instead of plugging in Orlando Pace.He knew he would not be there for 10 years.Pace was a HOF, but who knows what he does on a poor Jets team
I don't see that draft haul as being the main catalyst behind much. You speak as if the Jets wouldn't have filled any holes without the trade... They still had picks and could have walked away with Ferguson, Leon and filled holes WITH Walter Jones, Pace or Manning.IMO, Parcells learned a lesson and the next shot he had at adding a franchise LT in Miami he did it. He also wanted nothing to do with Vinny and stepped in #### on that one.To me, Manning was like Andrew Luck in this draft and supposedly Parcels ego got in the way and he wouldn't promise the Mannings anything. Drafting a Luck or Manning is a once in a lifetime opportunity - I would have wanted Parcells to get on his knees For PM. Yeah, I blame Parcells - he did well with what he had but, the course of this franchise and it's history with crappy QB's could have been on a whole other plane......Sheesh, look at the Colts - Talk about holes to fill and a team that was exposed and they might still have Manning yet they won't flinch when the opportunity for a top level Franchise QB is within their reach.
:goodposting: Since Namath: Richard Todd, Matt Robinson, Ken O'Brien (passing on Marino), Pat Ryan, Browning Nagle, Boomer Esiason (the old version), Neil O'Donnel, Glen Foley, Vinny Testaverde, Ray Lucas, Chad Pennington, Kellen Clemens, Brett Favre (old version), Mark Sanchez...........you want to know why the Jets havent been in the Super Bowl for over 40 years look no further - If you have a chance to draft a top franchise QB blue chip player with the pedigree of Peyton you not only promise to draft him #1 but you pick him up at the airport and set him up in the area as well! Parcells' ego cost the Jets big time.....and dont get me started on that loss to Detroit where he refused to let O'Donnell win the game and had Lucas and Leon Johnson throwing passes in crunch time! As for Peyton - Jets 2012 ---it would be a typical Jet move ala Favre, Boomer, etc. His old OC is here and Wooody loves to make splashes to sell PSLs...I hope it doesnt happen but it wouldnt shock me. Jets are more than an injured QB away...can you imagine Peyton behind that Jet OL? My neck hurts thinking about it!
 
All Manning did is use the only leverage he has right now.

At his age and with Luck coming in the Colts are much better off releasing him than paying the 28 million bonus.

Love him or hate him Manning has been great for the NFL. At this point in time he should be able to choose where he wants to go. The Colts need to decide is 28 million worth a couple of future draft picks? Or it might be 28 million and Manning will never play again.

The decision looks easy.

 
I don't see the Colts keeping both Manning and Luck (and I think we all agree they are drafting Luck). Too much money tied into both if you try to. Will the Colts trade Manning?

They say no, but I think if Peyton is healthy enough and willing to play for a contender, they might relent and try to trade him. Then how much for him comes into play, and who

would be willing to trade a bunch of picks/players for a player they are able to start for 3-4 more years? I don't think too many teams. If Manning were healthy enough to play,

and cleared by doctors, there would be a lot of interest in him, but out of the teams that could desperately use a QB, very few are contenders. Manning will retire before he

plays for a team that isn't on the cusp of being a Super Bowl contender, and maybe a piece or two away. He will not go to a team that might have some talent, but missing a number

of pieces still. I agree in that Manning likely also would not want to be traded to a team that will be gutted via picks/players just to get him.

So many scenarios. This will easily be the top offseason story. If he isn't 100% or close to 100% by March, I could see him retiring, thinking no team would want to take the

risk (he'll still want top $$ too). Baltimore would indeed be a very interesting choice...

 
'Bayhawks said:
'humpback said:
Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.
There is a lot of talk about the Colts not being able to tie up so much money in 1 position (if they keep Manning AND use the #1 pick on a QB). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luck's contract would be very similar to Cam Newton's right? That was 5 years, $22 Million total, wasn't it? Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap. That, plus Luck's $4M-$5M against the cap is not impossible to work around.
That would be about 42 mill or more in up front money Irsay would have to pay out for a position where one of them is sitting. ]No way.
Why-they wouldn't be spending any more money on the QB position than they did this year.Say Luck gets 20% more than Cam. That's a little under $27M over 4 years (or was it 5?) or $6.75M/year (assuming 4 years). Peyton's cap hit (if the Colts give him his bonus) is $16M. So $16M plus about $7M means they'd have $23M invested in their QB position.

In 2011, Peyton was paid $23M, plus the Colts paid Collins $4M (salary plus guaranteed bonus). So, last year, they had AT LEAST $27M invested in their QB position (plus what they paid Orlovsky and Painter). So, if the Colts keep Manning and draft Luck, they won't be spending any more on the QB position than they did in 2011. Why wouldn't Irsay do that?
Why are you only counting the cap number for next year, but the total amount paid last year?
Because the cap number is (to the best of my understanding) the player's salary, plus any bonus money earned that is applied to the cap for that year. Peyton's salary for next year is less than $8M, but part of the $28M bonus would be applied to that year, making the total cap number $16M. Last year, his SALARY was $23M, so his cap hit was $23M.
The amount of cash they'd have to pay out to Peyton and Luck would be a lot more than $23M, and more than they paid last year.
No, it wouldn't (unless there's something I'm missing), and that's my point. People who keep saying the Colts can't tie that much money up at QB are wrong, they already have.
it just doesn't make sense for a team with so many holes to have that much tied up at one position.
This is another issue completely, but one I think they (& other teams with expensive QBs) are able to work around.
I'm not saying they wouldn't do it because of the cap ramifications (although that's a consideration), it's the actual cash they'd have to pay him. The bottom line is, if he's on the roster on March 8th, they have to write him a check for $28M. That's a huge cash commitment to a guy who they aren't sure is even going to be able to play. He's also due a salary of over $7M for the year, so if they keep him they are paying him over $35M in cash for the 2012 season. Add in what they'd have to fork over to Luck (probably a lot in terms of bonus in year 1) and I doubt there's a team in the NFL who comes close to that amount of cash laid out for the QB position.
 
A lot of people in here overestimating both the transformative power Peyton would have on a franchise, as well as franchises' likely levels of interest in him.

Upper-30's cripple with a huge price tag who is one stiff breeze away from paralysis? Most of the teams being cited as wish-listing him wouldn't take a flyer for the price he's likely to command at this point in his career. If he comes back, his options are limited pretty much to teams within shouting distance of competing, who also have terrible front offices.

WAS and NYJ have to be right up front on this, but it's hard to see many others being that foolish.

 
A lot of people in here overestimating both the transformative power Peyton would have on a franchise, as well as franchises' likely levels of interest in him.

Upper-30's cripple with a huge price tag who is one stiff breeze away from paralysis? Most of the teams being cited as wish-listing him wouldn't take a flyer for the price he's likely to command at this point in his career. If he comes back, his options are limited pretty much to teams within shouting distance of competing, who also have terrible front offices.



WAS and NYJ have to be right up front on this, but it's hard to see many others being that foolish.
:goodposting: I'll say it again, Baltimore is not interested. They build from within, and while they let good players go - Heap, McGahee, Bart Scott, Kelly Gregg, Jamie Sharper - they don't let their cornerstone franchise players leave - Ogden, Lewis, Reed, Suggs, Ngata. I expect them to lock up Flacco and Rice the same way.

And the Ravens are still too burned by the Elvis Grbac experience to go that way again. Before you laugh, realize that the Elvis the Ravens got following his 2000 season (4200 yards, 28 TDs-14 INTs, 89.9 rating) isn't too far from what Manning did in 2010 (4700, 33-17, 91.9) and that was before multiple neck surgeries and missing an entire year.

 
If it wasn't healed and he plans on retiring, then there's no reason to take a hard stance on the bonus. All he does is force the Colts to cut him so he retires as a free agent rather than as Colt. So where's the upside?
Money? I haven't seen his contract, but it's very likely that he'd have to return a portion of his original signing bonus if he retires before his contract is up — but not if he gets cut.
 
'Bayhawks said:
Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap.
Where are you getting that? According to the original post in this thread, the roster bonus is $28 million. It would therefore count $28 million against the 2012 cap, no?
 
'Bayhawks said:
'humpback said:
Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.
There is a lot of talk about the Colts not being able to tie up so much money in 1 position (if they keep Manning AND use the #1 pick on a QB). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luck's contract would be very similar to Cam Newton's right? That was 5 years, $22 Million total, wasn't it? Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap. That, plus Luck's $4M-$5M against the cap is not impossible to work around.
That would be about 42 mill or more in up front money Irsay would have to pay out for a position where one of them is sitting. ]No way.
Why-they wouldn't be spending any more money on the QB position than they did this year.Say Luck gets 20% more than Cam. That's a little under $27M over 4 years (or was it 5?) or $6.75M/year (assuming 4 years). Peyton's cap hit (if the Colts give him his bonus) is $16M. So $16M plus about $7M means they'd have $23M invested in their QB position.

In 2011, Peyton was paid $23M, plus the Colts paid Collins $4M (salary plus guaranteed bonus). So, last year, they had AT LEAST $27M invested in their QB position (plus what they paid Orlovsky and Painter). So, if the Colts keep Manning and draft Luck, they won't be spending any more on the QB position than they did in 2011. Why wouldn't Irsay do that?
Why are you only counting the cap number for next year, but the total amount paid last year?
Because the cap number is (to the best of my understanding) the player's salary, plus any bonus money earned that is applied to the cap for that year. Peyton's salary for next year is less than $8M, but part of the $28M bonus would be applied to that year, making the total cap number $16M. Last year, his SALARY was $23M, so his cap hit was $23M.
The amount of cash they'd have to pay out to Peyton and Luck would be a lot more than $23M, and more than they paid last year.
No, it wouldn't (unless there's something I'm missing), and that's my point. People who keep saying the Colts can't tie that much money up at QB are wrong, they already have.
it just doesn't make sense for a team with so many holes to have that much tied up at one position.
This is another issue completely, but one I think they (& other teams with expensive QBs) are able to work around.
I'm not saying they wouldn't do it because of the cap ramifications (although that's a consideration), it's the actual cash they'd have to pay him. The bottom line is, if he's on the roster on March 8th, they have to write him a check for $28M. That's a huge cash commitment to a guy who they aren't sure is even going to be able to play. He's also due a salary of over $7M for the year, so if they keep him they are paying him over $35M in cash for the 2012 season. Add in what they'd have to fork over to Luck (probably a lot in terms of bonus in year 1) and I doubt there's a team in the NFL who comes close to that amount of cash laid out for the QB position.
I'm sure many teams do (especially those who have franchise QBs who have played out their rookie contracts).Michael Vick' salary for this year was $10M, he was given a $7M signing bonus, and a $3M roster bonus. Vince Young's salary in 2011 was $1.5M, he received a $2M signing bonus, and he also receive another bonus of $1/2M. That's $24M the Eagles tied up in their QB position (not counting Kafka).

Mark Sanchez' salary for this year was $17.25M, he received $2.5M in bonuses. Mark Brunell made $575K, so the Jet's had over $20M in their QB position.

Roethlisberger's salary for this year was $11.6M, plus he received a bonus of $3.15M; Leftwich was paid $1.75M, with a $250K signing bonus, Charlie Batch received a little over $900K (salary + bonuses), & Dennis Dixon was paid $1.2M. That's approximately $19M in their QB position.

As previously mentioned, the Colts spent over $20M on their QB position. It's not as uncommon as you think.

 
I'm sure many teams do (especially those who have franchise QBs who have played out their rookie contracts).Michael Vick' salary for this year was $10M, he was given a $7M signing bonus, and a $3M roster bonus. Vince Young's salary in 2011 was $1.5M, he received a $2M signing bonus, and he also receive another bonus of $1/2M. That's $24M the Eagles tied up in their QB position (not counting Kafka).Mark Sanchez' salary for this year was $17.25M, he received $2.5M in bonuses. Mark Brunell made $575K, so the Jet's had over $20M in their QB position.Roethlisberger's salary for this year was $11.6M, plus he received a bonus of $3.15M; Leftwich was paid $1.75M, with a $250K signing bonus, Charlie Batch received a little over $900K (salary + bonuses), & Dennis Dixon was paid $1.2M. That's approximately $19M in their QB position.As previously mentioned, the Colts spent over $20M on their QB position. It's not as uncommon as you think.
Am I missing something? None of these numbers are anywhere close to the $50+M the Colts would be paying to Peyton and Luck in 2012. Not even half. :confused:
 
We traded for McNair also... and it paid off the first year... so it is not out of the realm of possibilities. Especially if Flacco fails to get to the SB.

 
We traded for McNair also... and it paid off the first year... so it is not out of the realm of possibilities. Especially if Flacco fails to get to the SB.
That was coming off a 6-10 season with QBs Anthony Wright and Kyle Boller combining for a 71 QB rating, not an AFC Championship game. As to not hijack, I'll take further discussion to the "Is Flacco the long-term solution" thread, but there is categorically no way Baltimore is going after Manning.
 
I'm sure many teams do (especially those who have franchise QBs who have played out their rookie contracts).Michael Vick' salary for this year was $10M, he was given a $7M signing bonus, and a $3M roster bonus. Vince Young's salary in 2011 was $1.5M, he received a $2M signing bonus, and he also receive another bonus of $1/2M. That's $24M the Eagles tied up in their QB position (not counting Kafka).Mark Sanchez' salary for this year was $17.25M, he received $2.5M in bonuses. Mark Brunell made $575K, so the Jet's had over $20M in their QB position.Roethlisberger's salary for this year was $11.6M, plus he received a bonus of $3.15M; Leftwich was paid $1.75M, with a $250K signing bonus, Charlie Batch received a little over $900K (salary + bonuses), & Dennis Dixon was paid $1.2M. That's approximately $19M in their QB position.As previously mentioned, the Colts spent over $20M on their QB position. It's not as uncommon as you think.
Am I missing something? None of these numbers are anywhere close to the $50+M the Colts would be paying to Peyton and Luck in 2012. Not even half. :confused:
Yeah, you are. The bonus money is spread out over the length of the contract. NFL clubs don't look at the bonus as being a 1-year expense (even though the "check" is cut initially). If you insist on looking at the bonus as a 1 year expenditure, then that makes all subsequent years of that contract GREAT values. For instance, the Colts would go from paying approximately $50M in 2012 to their QBs to paying them less than $9M in 2013. The Colts have already demonstrated that they will pay $25M+ in one year for their QBs, so there is no legitimate reason to believe they won't do it again.Luck will get a similar contract to Newton. Newton received a $14.5M signing bonus, and his salary for 2011 was $375K. So, if you include the entire bonus with the salary, Luck would be getting approximately $15M. Manning would
 
The bonus money is spread out over the length of the contract.
For salary cap purposes, signing bonuses are spread out over the life of the contract. Roster bonuses are counted 100% in the year they are paid.
The Colts have already demonstrated that they will pay $25M+ in one year for their QBs, so there is no legitimate reason to believe they won't do it again
They finished 2-14. They may not want to pursue the same strategy again.
 
I'm sure many teams do (especially those who have franchise QBs who have played out their rookie contracts).Michael Vick' salary for this year was $10M, he was given a $7M signing bonus, and a $3M roster bonus. Vince Young's salary in 2011 was $1.5M, he received a $2M signing bonus, and he also receive another bonus of $1/2M. That's $24M the Eagles tied up in their QB position (not counting Kafka).Mark Sanchez' salary for this year was $17.25M, he received $2.5M in bonuses. Mark Brunell made $575K, so the Jet's had over $20M in their QB position.Roethlisberger's salary for this year was $11.6M, plus he received a bonus of $3.15M; Leftwich was paid $1.75M, with a $250K signing bonus, Charlie Batch received a little over $900K (salary + bonuses), & Dennis Dixon was paid $1.2M. That's approximately $19M in their QB position.As previously mentioned, the Colts spent over $20M on their QB position. It's not as uncommon as you think.
Am I missing something? None of these numbers are anywhere close to the $50+M the Colts would be paying to Peyton and Luck in 2012. Not even half. :confused:
Yeah, you are. The bonus money is spread out over the length of the contract. NFL clubs don't look at the bonus as being a 1-year expense (even though the "check" is cut initially). If you insist on looking at the bonus as a 1 year expenditure, then that makes all subsequent years of that contract GREAT values. For instance, the Colts would go from paying approximately $50M in 2012 to their QBs to paying them less than $9M in 2013. The Colts have already demonstrated that they will pay $25M+ in one year for their QBs, so there is no legitimate reason to believe they won't do it again.Luck will get a similar contract to Newton. Newton received a $14.5M signing bonus, and his salary for 2011 was $375K. So, if you include the entire bonus with the salary, Luck would be getting approximately $15M. Manning would
I understand how contracts and bonuses work. Doesn't change the fact that no team in NFL history has even approached the amount of money that Indy would have to shell out in 2012 for the Peyton/Luck combo. Sure, it could be a great deal in 2013, but my point is, they aren't going to agree to pay out $50-$55M in 2012 without the guarantee that Peyton is healthy enough to play. Pretty sure they won't be comfortable enough with his health by March 8th, which is the point of this thread. It would be a different discussion entirely if Peyton was healthy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure many teams do (especially those who have franchise QBs who have played out their rookie contracts).Michael Vick' salary for this year was $10M, he was given a $7M signing bonus, and a $3M roster bonus. Vince Young's salary in 2011 was $1.5M, he received a $2M signing bonus, and he also receive another bonus of $1/2M. That's $24M the Eagles tied up in their QB position (not counting Kafka).Mark Sanchez' salary for this year was $17.25M, he received $2.5M in bonuses. Mark Brunell made $575K, so the Jet's had over $20M in their QB position.Roethlisberger's salary for this year was $11.6M, plus he received a bonus of $3.15M; Leftwich was paid $1.75M, with a $250K signing bonus, Charlie Batch received a little over $900K (salary + bonuses), & Dennis Dixon was paid $1.2M. That's approximately $19M in their QB position.As previously mentioned, the Colts spent over $20M on their QB position. It's not as uncommon as you think.
Am I missing something? None of these numbers are anywhere close to the $50+M the Colts would be paying to Peyton and Luck in 2012. Not even half. :confused:
Yeah, you are. The bonus money is spread out over the length of the contract. NFL clubs don't look at the bonus as being a 1-year expense (even though the "check" is cut initially). If you insist on looking at the bonus as a 1 year expenditure, then that makes all subsequent years of that contract GREAT values. For instance, the Colts would go from paying approximately $50M in 2012 to their QBs to paying them less than $9M in 2013. The Colts have already demonstrated that they will pay $25M+ in one year for their QBs, so there is no legitimate reason to believe they won't do it again.Luck will get a similar contract to Newton. Newton received a $14.5M signing bonus, and his salary for 2011 was $375K. So, if you include the entire bonus with the salary, Luck would be getting approximately $15M. Manning would
I understand how contracts and bonuses work. Doesn't change the fact that no team in NFL history has even approached the amount of money that Indy would have to shell out in 2012 for the Peyton/Luck combo. Sure, it could be a great deal in 2013, but my point is, they aren't going to agree to pay out $50-$55M in 2012 without the guarantee that Peyton is healthy enough to play. Pretty sure they won't be comfortable enough with his health by March 8th, which is the point of this thread. It would be a different discussion entirely if Peyton was healthy.
lol @ Mark Sanchez salary this year
 
The bonus money is spread out over the length of the contract.
For salary cap purposes, signing bonuses are spread out over the life of the contract. Roster bonuses are counted 100% in the year they are paid.
Right-I should have specified I meant signing bonuses. BTW-the March bonus is an "option" bonus; how would that be counted?
The Colts have already demonstrated that they will pay $25M+ in one year for their QBs, so there is no legitimate reason to believe they won't do it again
They finished 2-14. They may not want to pursue the same strategy again.
I have been posting with the assumption that Peyton is healthy, and the Colts will expect him to play 3-4 more years. If he is healthy, investing that much money in the QB position is completely different than what happened in 2011, because all the $$ they paid Peyton last year didn't ACTUALLY help their QB situation, where paying a healthy Peyton and a "once in a generation QB" like Luck would (in theory) help their QB situation.
 
lol @ Mark Sanchez salary this year
I believe that's actually GOOD. What that really means is that a large portion of his overall salary/bonus was paid last year so, they can cut him loose at any time now with minimal hit.....If he doesn't make huge strides this year, they cut him next year and eat 2.5 mill. Or even this year for a 5 mill hit.
 
I'm sure many teams do (especially those who have franchise QBs who have played out their rookie contracts).

Michael Vick' salary for this year was $10M, he was given a $7M signing bonus, and a $3M roster bonus. Vince Young's salary in 2011 was $1.5M, he received a $2M signing bonus, and he also receive another bonus of $1/2M. That's $24M the Eagles tied up in their QB position (not counting Kafka).

Mark Sanchez' salary for this year was $17.25M, he received $2.5M in bonuses. Mark Brunell made $575K, so the Jet's had over $20M in their QB position.

Roethlisberger's salary for this year was $11.6M, plus he received a bonus of $3.15M; Leftwich was paid $1.75M, with a $250K signing bonus, Charlie Batch received a little over $900K (salary + bonuses), & Dennis Dixon was paid $1.2M. That's approximately $19M in their QB position.

As previously mentioned, the Colts spent over $20M on their QB position. It's not as uncommon as you think.
Am I missing something? None of these numbers are anywhere close to the $50+M the Colts would be paying to Peyton and Luck in 2012. Not even half. :confused:
Yeah, you are. The bonus money is spread out over the length of the contract. NFL clubs don't look at the bonus as being a 1-year expense (even though the "check" is cut initially). If you insist on looking at the bonus as a 1 year expenditure, then that makes all subsequent years of that contract GREAT values. For instance, the Colts would go from paying approximately $50M in 2012 to their QBs to paying them less than $9M in 2013. The Colts have already demonstrated that they will pay $25M+ in one year for their QBs, so there is no legitimate reason to believe they won't do it again.

Luck will get a similar contract to Newton. Newton received a $14.5M signing bonus, and his salary for 2011 was $375K. So, if you include the entire bonus with the salary, Luck would be getting approximately $15M. Manning would
I understand how contracts and bonuses work. Doesn't change the fact that no team in NFL history has even approached the amount of money that Indy would have to shell out in 2012 for the Peyton/Luck combo. Sure, it could be a great deal in 2013, but my point is, they aren't going to agree to pay out $50-$55M in 2012 without the guarantee that Peyton is healthy enough to play. Pretty sure they won't be comfortable enough with his health by March 8th, which is the point of this thread. It would be a different discussion entirely if Peyton was healthy.
Okay, then we're discussing two different points here. My initial post was discussing posts that contend that the Colts can't afford to "have that money tied up in one position." IF they believe Peyton is healthy, I don't see why they would be unwilling to pay Peyton AND draft Luck, since the rookie salaries aren't as crazy high as they used to be.Look at it this way. If Peyton hadn't missed this year, and had played up to his normal standards, but the Colts had lucked (pun intended) into the #1 pick through a trade, would anyone be suggesting the Colts would cut Peyton, because they wouldn't want to pay both QBs? I highly doubt it.

 
Some of the posted capology about Peyton's contract didn't sound right. Here's the best I can piece it together from various news articles and then filling in the voids myself:

In 2011 he signed a $90m, 5 year deal with a $20m signing bonus. The $20m gets prorated over the 5 years of his contract. He also has a $28m option bonus due to him at the start of the 2012 year which is what the current hoopla is about, Indy wanting to push back the date by which they have to decide. Option bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract the same as signing bonuses are (even though the team hasn't had to yet decide to exercise the option or not). So the total prorated amount each year is $20m signing + $28m option = $48m over 5 years = $9.6m prorated each year.

His salaries and cap hit are:

2011: $3.4m + $3m roster bonus + $9.6 prorated = $16m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $17m2013: $8.4m + $9.6 prorated = $18m2014: $9.4m + $9.6 prorated = $19m2015: $10.4m + $9.6 prorated = $20mTotal base salary: $39mTotal roster bonuses: $3m in 2011

Total signing bonus: $20m

Total option bonus: $28m

Add them up and that is $90m.

As far as the choices before Indy, they can:



Cut Peyton before paying him the $28m

This would mean the $16m from his signing bonus that hasn't hit the cap yet would be a cap charge in 2012. However they would also get a $5.6m rebate because they were charged that in 2011 as a prorated amount of the $28m option bonus they ended up not paying. So cutting Peyton would be about a $10.4m cap hit against their 2012 cap. Peyton would walk away with a total of $26.4m in cash for the 2011 season, that money having been spread over the 2011 and 2012 caps for the Colts at $16m and $10.4m respectively.

Give Peyton the $28m and keep him for the year

His cap hit would be shown as above, $17m. If they then cut him or traded him in 2013 they would have a $28.8m cap hit, so if they pay him the $28m odds are they keep him at least until 2014 when the cap hit would drop to $19.2m. Unless he retired and paid some of the bonus(es) back.

Give Peyton the $28m and trade him in the 2012 off-season

His cap hit would be $38.4m. No way that is going to happen.

Trade Peyton before the $28m is due

They can't do this because the bonus is due on March 8th, and you can't trade players until March 13th. If they could trade him before having to pay him the option, the other team would pay him the $28m and he would either cost the Colts $16m or $10.4m in cap hit. I'm not sure which, don't know if the Colts would get the $5.6m refund that they paid in 2011 as proration on the option bonus that was later paid to him by another team. If I had to guess I'd say no but not sure.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'mphtrilogy said:
here's a top 10 stab at landing spots...i'd take him in ny as a jet fan...1: Miami Dolphins- O-Line is solid, good receiving core, owner would make the splash, weather is nice2: Arizona Cardinals - weather is good, lfitz is all world… nfc west is doable although sf is now a factor3: Kansas City Chiefs - solid wrs, decent o-line good run game; outdoors/cold4: Minnesota Vikings - indoor selling point, but ponder must be pondered5: Washington Redskins - but same divison as Eli and Shanny is a wildcard, wrs are soso6: Houston Texans - solid wrs, top d, very winnable division7: New York Jets - cap is bad, but could take delayed structured guarneteed deal, rex loves him, d is solid, outdoors/cold8: Seattle Seahawks - good home field, but does sea want him? 9: Baltimore Ravens - if flacco falls apart this week, maybe….10: San Francisco 49ers - maybe 2 mos ago, with alex smith now, not so much, but smith is on a one year deal?
No way the Vikes take him after going through Favre.
 
'Pots said:
'The_Man said:
Manning is not coming to Baltimore. They're going to have to franchise Rice this year (or give him a long-term deal) and work hard to keep RG Ben Grubbs under the cap, and figure out what to do at C if/when Matt Birk retires. Flacco is in the last year of his rookie deal next year and the team is committed to him for next year, and I think the long term after that.

They can't afford Manning, plus they've gone this route before with Grbac and then McNair and now they want to groom and keep their own long-term guy. If anyone is gone next year, it's Cam Cameron, not Flacco.
Lets see how Flacco does this week before we assume anything about Flacco long-term
He got them to the championship game, they're not going to dump him.
Did he?When everyone in the world looks at your team and points to the QB as the weak link that may keep you out of the Super Bowl, I think you've got to realize that the team's commitment to Flacco is probably not near as firm as they make it sound (because they have to) in press conferences.

The grumbling is so loud now that Flacco is defensive in press conferences.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top