Yup, and if they trade him they take that whole $28 million (and some other bonuses as well) on their 2012 salary cap. Essentially a quarter of their cap space would be spent on a player not on the team.
John Clayton: Peyton Manning headed for retirement?
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
If this really is the end of Peyton Manning, how will we remember him? He reminds me in a lot of ways of Brett Favre, not as much a gunslinger as Brett, but the fact that for quite a while he was the best qb in the league and should have a fistful of rings, but only managed to scrape out one.
Bradshaw's was somewhat combative, too, if I remember it right. He came back from an elbow injury to lead the Steelers to a win over the Jets, which put Pitt in the playoffs, but he blew out his repaired elbow in the process. It was unclear how much Chuck Noll put on him to come back during the 1983 season. Sit it out, and he may have been able to play in 84 and beyond.
Of course, if I remember it right, finances and career's aside, it was a fitting end -- going out in a victory, sacrificing his career in the process, etc. Of course, he was 35 at the time, so it's unclear how much more post-season magic he had left. But it wasn't a smooth retirement, but Staubach's was pretty seamless. Probably because Staubach had a life outside football. Tarkenton also seemed to depart pretty easily, iirc. Len Dawson may have left on a reasonably high note, too.
The flip side are Montana, Unitas, Namath(?), Stabler(?) Favre, -- their paths are more common.
Beyond this, assuming he can play, there is likely no way Peyton allows the Colts to dictate his destination; nor would he want his new team stripped of high round picks. And Peyton can control this by refusing to extend the bonus date.
Montana's friction with the Niners and Steve Young are well known, but after he went to the Chiefs he had two successful seasons and then retired on his own terms.
From Wikipedia:
Favre was maybe the best QB in the league for about a 3-4 year stretch in the mid 1990s, during which he won a Super Bowl. Other than that, while he was certainly a good QB, he was rarely in contention for that post. I'm really not sure he won fewer rings than should be expected of him.
Peyton on the other hand...
And did an awesome press conference where he parodied Jordan by saying he was going to take up playing Basketball for the Bulls. That last JM playoff run and retirement are my oldest non-Pats football memories.
Exactly. Those Packers teams (other than the '95/'96/'97 versions) were no great shakes. The Colts, on the other hand, were among the top teams in the AFC from 2003-2010.
The 2000s Indianapolis Colts are the 1990s Atlanta Braves -- brilliantly talented, widely respected, but ultimately a rung below the true legends of their respective sport because of their postseason failures.
Problem for the Braves is they had to face the Yankees and the Colts had to face the Patriots/Steelers. The teams were always better. Peyton never had the best team other than 2006. It's a shame, like Marino, as it would have been interesting to see what they would do with the best coach/defense surrounding them.
I would argue that the '05 Colts that got Vanderjagted were actually a better team than the '06 version that won it all - the latter just got hot at the right time. Arguably the '09 team which lost the Superbowl because of lazy special teams as well.
This argument only goes so far. The Colts were the #1 or #2 seed 4 times in the Manning era, and not only did they not win the super bowl during any of those years, they didn't even play the Pats in the playoffs those years! When they were at their best, it was other teams that knocked them out, not the Pats. Much is made of the Colts inability to get past the Pats in the 04 and 05 playoffs (the Colts and their offense were seen as nearly unstoppable in the days leading up to both games), but the Pats were the better team and higher seed both years (1 vs 3 in 2004, 2 vs 3 in 2005). Brady/Manning was THE rivalry of the last decade, but removing their head to head playoff games, Manning is still just 8-8 in the playoffs, including SEVEN losses in the opening round (4 at home). Indy lost more postseason games to the Jets/Chargers (0-4) than they did to the Pats/Steelers (1-3). The Colts won more regular season games in the 2000s than any team did in any decade, ever. They were a disappointment in the postseason, and that isn't because of the Patriots and Steelers.
Manning was a bit of a bum in the post-season IIRC. The Steeler's game I'm thinking of was the home game where their kicker blew a chance to win it for them. I could have sworn the Pats got in the way of the Colts one year. My bad. With that said, their ratings were based on record and their division. They were clearly always a great reg season team but they were never truly a complete team, which is my main point. You never heard people say "Wow, the Colts have a great defense". They were never a complete team like the Patriots or Steelers who could shut you down on defense and have an above average QB with a great offensive line to boot. The Colts were always a 1 trick pony outside of 2006 when Bob Sanders was finally able to play. If Peyton had been a Steeler or Patriot I don't think he only has one ring - that's all I'm saying. Same for Marino. Just as I feel if Montana were a Jet he wouldn't have had 4 rings. The QB gets way too much credit sometimes and, a lot of times, too much blame for a team's failings. Sometimes I don't feel that is logical because a team has to win the game. A QB can only do so much as Archie Manning showed.
It's true, the QB can only control one side of the ball. That said, in Manning's 10 playoff losses, they have scored 16, 17, 0, 14, 3, 18, 24, 17, 17, and 16 points. That is an average of 14.2 points per game. Sure, a better D might have helped him squeak out one or two of those wins. But it's not like they've been losing a lot of 38-34 playoff games in which Manning plays well but the D shits the bed.
Edit: Peyton has played 19 playoff games; the Colts have scored under 20 points in 10 of those games. Brady has played 21 playoff games, the Pats have scored under 20 points in 5 of those games.
Edit: Peyton has played 19 playoff games; the Colts have scored under 20 points in 10 of those games. Brady has played 21 playoff games, the Pats have scored under 20 points in 5 of those games.
Right. The "Manning hasn't won more championships because he never had a defense" argument is a tough one to make when you consider he's had playoff losses in which the Colts D has given up 19, 23, 24, 20, 21, 23, and 17 points. Sure, not dominant defensive performances, but certainly good enough with a good offense.
On the whole, the Colts have given up 397 points in Manning's 19 playoff games, 20.9 per game. The Pats have given up 400 points in Brady's 21 games, 19.0 per game. So the Pats D has been a bit better than Manning's, but not worlds better.
Not sure about this. The Braves constantly ran into one year teams. I don't even count the yankees as the problem. From 1991-1998 which was the Braves true heyday talent wise they lost to different teams each year. (I don't really count 1999 because the accomplishment was making the Series that year, they were a shell of themselves due to injuries.)
91 Twins (Never again what they were)
92 Blue Jays (Probably the best argument against playing one year wonders every time, but)
93 Philles (Never the same until over a decade later)
94 Strike (Would have been crushed by a one year Expo team anyways)
95 Ring
96 Yankees (Beginning of the rise of the Evil Empire)
97 Marlins (Blown up before ST the next year)
98 Padres (Never again the same)
They were defeated by one year wonders aside from the Yankees. Even then if you consider 91-to the end of the playoff run to be the true measure of that dynasty-like period, the Yankees in 96 and 99 is the only true repeat team.
When I was young and growing up in Richmond (AAA affiliate) it always hurt that the Braves couldnt hit in the big game and that they always ran into teams loaded up for the one year run.
So, no the Colts are not like the Braves. The Colts ran into the teams who they would be contending against for years and could not get past any of them but once. I am not sure which is worse, but to me they are different.
EDIT: Fixed a date and clarity.
Much like Brady, Peyton's postseason numbers are remarkably mediocre. In particular, he's thrown for an awful lot of picks in the playoffs (29:19 TD:INT), leading to only an 88.4 QB rating. Brady's numbers take an even bigger hit, due to a similar issue (30:18 TD:INT), culminating in an 84.3 QB rating.
Montana really shines through here. In spite of playing in a worse passing environment, his QB rating (95.6) was significantly better than either Brady or Peyton's.
Montana really shines through here. In spite of playing in a worse passing environment, his QB rating (95.6) was significantly better than either Brady or Peyton's.
Not sure where your numbers are from but according to Pro Football Reference Brady has a 36:19 TD:INT ratio in 21 games, and a 87.6 rating.
Listen, I'm not going to the mattresses about this argument: there's an obvious parallel, and I think it's apt.
The Colts were incredibly talented and only won one ring. I think this damages their legacy.
The Braves were incredibly talented and only won one ring. I think this damages their legacy.
But I have to say... huh?
So... what? Are you arguing the Braves lost to "lucky" or "fluky" teams? If anything, that would further weaken their legacy, as much as consistently running into superior teams year after year. (And, as an aside, that's not even true -- those '91 Twins had won the '87 Series and were great in that stretch, and the '92 Blue Jays were the first of back-to-back Championships... and again, I don't get the point. A loss is a loss is a loss.) The Braves lost. The Colts lost. They lost to good teams, sure. But the great teams and players are able to beat the good teams they inevitably play in the playoffs. The Braves couldn't do it, and neither could the Colts.
The Braves lost to the Twins, Blue Jays, Phillies, Yankees, Marlins and Padres. (6 different teams)
The Colts lost to the Patriots (x2), Steelers, Chargers (x2), Saints, and Jets. (5 different teams)
Different years, different sports, same story: regular season success and (generally) post-season failure to a collection of teams.
Don't take my word for it:
Bob Kravitz in Indy Star in 2008:
Edit: And really, I'm not trying to make a particularly sophisticated point here. I think it damages Peyton Manning's legacy that he'll walk away with only one ring and a litany of playoff duds.
I don't want to clog the thread, because I could be wrong. So this will be the last I'll say anything about it. My disclaimer at the end probably means I shouldnt post this anyways.
In 91 the Twins had just finished 90 in last place. That team was loaded for a run, not a direct continuation of the 87 Champs.
I would say that there is a difference in losing vs. one year wonders. One team is built to be a steady and perennial contender, the other is loaded for bare for one season. They are 2 different ways to compete.
I dont think the Colts were like the Braves. The Colts were found as wanting against the better teams of their era repeatedly. All of those teams that you mentioned that the colts lost to were multiple playoff qualifiers.
In the end I was a fan of this team because I watched all of their best players develop, so I am probably trying to add more shine to a fond memory. The Braves lost because to a man they couldnt hit in the postseason. Was there a collective failure for the Colts or did it rest on Manning's shoulders?
In 91 the Twins had just finished 90 in last place. That team was loaded for a run, not a direct continuation of the 87 Champs.
I would say that there is a difference in losing vs. one year wonders. One team is built to be a steady and perennial contender, the other is loaded for bare for one season. They are 2 different ways to compete.
I dont think the Colts were like the Braves. The Colts were found as wanting against the better teams of their era repeatedly. All of those teams that you mentioned that the colts lost to were multiple playoff qualifiers.
In the end I was a fan of this team because I watched all of their best players develop, so I am probably trying to add more shine to a fond memory. The Braves lost because to a man they couldnt hit in the postseason. Was there a collective failure for the Colts or did it rest on Manning's shoulders?
Brady's career playoff rating is 87.6 and more than half of his postseason games were played in Foxborough. That is a factor that shouldn't be discounted when talking about his playoff numbers.
My recollection is that Manning has huge variance in his playoff performances. He put up some insane numbers against terrible defenses, but also has had numerous putrid playoff performances. I'm going to see if I can find FO stats on Brady v. Manning carreer playoff numbers.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00/gamelog/post/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00/gamelog/post/
I still don't understand the relevance of the argument, but this statistic doesn't really work, right? Does that really surprise you when you consider that 12 NFL teams make the playoffs each year, especially when compared to only 4 MLB teams did so until '95?
You're on much stronger ground here.
The general point is this: at the moment, it feels to this Patriots fan that Manning will be remembered more for what he didn't do (win multiple titles) than what he did (win one, have great years). Perhaps I'm not the most objective analyst on the subject.
This is really independent of any real debate about Manning's legacy, but for this Pats fan, the last few years of sub-par Manning have actually sort of cemented a memory of excellence for me, as twisted as that logic sounds. Through 2006, I was so into the Manning vs. Brady debate that the only thing that stuck out for me were all Manning's shortcomings, because they were all I ever talked about in defense of Brady to neutral team fans I knew. Since 2007, though, I think the Manning vs. Brady thing has decidedly slanted in Brady's favor, doubly so if they win on Sunday, as in 3 of the 4 seasons he's played since then, Brady passed Manning's TD record, lit up last year with his second (and this time, unanimous) MVP and that ridiculous TD:INT ratio, and this season passed Marino's yardage mark. So now, all the seasonal volume numbers err in Brady's favor, and he still has the 3 rings. With that debate behind me, I appreciate more of what Manning did earlier in his career, and remember him more for the feeling of fear I used to never admit to myself I had whenever he had the ball in hand.
I'll miss the bastard when he's gone.
For the record, he really was not subpar in either of his last two seasons. 2009 was vintage Manning, and included his best overall playoffs, despite the pick to Tracey Porter. His numbers were definitely down in 2010, but he was the only thing holding that team together. They had a shitton of injuries, poor depth, and a bad, bad offensive line.
For the record, he really was not subpar in either of his last two seasons. 2009 was vintage Manning, and included his best overall playoffs, despite the pick to Tracey Porter. His numbers were definitely down in 2010, but he was the only thing holding that team together. They had a shitton of injuries, poor depth, and a bad, bad offensive line.
Saddens me, and I didn't think it would. Usually when an all time great retires, I think, well, won't have to worry about him beating us any more. Mariano Rivera, if you want to retire now, go ahead. Maybe it's somewhat because it's evident that Peyton and Brady are friends.
We have been - through chance and injury - robbed of a few epic showdowns between these two QBs: in '07 (IND lost to SD), '08 (Brady hurt), '09/'10 were great games but nondescript in terms of importance, '11 (Peyton hurt).
Hard to believe the last playoff game these teams played was 5 years ago. The rivalry isn't anything like it was in the mid-00s, as the Colts have given way to the Jets/Giants/Steelers/Ravens.
Hard to believe the last playoff game these teams played was 5 years ago. The rivalry isn't anything like it was in the mid-00s, as the Colts have given way to the Jets/Giants/Steelers/Ravens.
"Hard to believe the last playoff game these teams played was 5 years ago". I am always tempted to say that, no, it was in fact just a few years ago. Which leads me to think that I can't believe our last S.B meetup was 4 years ago. Good grief time flies. Unless your a Jet fan. Then it just shits on your head.
There is no way the Colts don't cut him if he doesn't retire. They should -- and I imagine probably will -- quietly let him know this so he can leave on his own terms.
"Imagine"?
It turned out not to be disastrous, but yeah, I think a lot of us had a glimpse. Heck, I'm pretty sure I can attribute at least 35% of SJH's mellow to Brady going to the ship.
Bummer for Peyton Manning personally but as for the plight of the Colts fans? LOL boo hoo. I feel no sadness for them when they just so happened to be god awful terrible in a season with as close to a "sure-fire-can't-miss-franchise-QB" sitting there for them again in the draft.
The Pats went 1-15 in 1990 and didn't even have the #1 pick for the 91 draft. Nuts to Colts fans.
The Pats went 1-15 in 1990 and didn't even have the #1 pick for the 91 draft. Nuts to Colts fans.
FWIW Mortensen on Mike and Mike called the retirement conversation "laughable", says Peyton is working his tail off trying to get back to football shape.
This whole situation is awful for Peyton as a person, I never liked him or the Colts I think they've basically ruined the league with all of these new rules, but to see an all time great get kicked out of the team he built is pretty sad regardless.
This whole situation is awful for Peyton as a person, I never liked him or the Colts I think they've basically ruined the league with all of these new rules, but to see an all time great get kicked out of the team he built is pretty sad regardless.
In two years? Brady will have completed his age 36 season. I mean, it'll be sad, but it won't be like he was cut down in his prime without ever showing what he could really do. You'd just hope it's not something that affects his day-to-day existence for the rest of his life.
In many ways, Manning's injury just intensifies our desire to see TB12 get number four on Sunday, because you never know what could happen the next time he takes the field.
It's also reasonably likely that Brady does have his career cut short by injuries rather than a gradual reduction in his skills--this is what happened to Marino and Montana and Aikman among others.
I'm confused - are you saying that Marino/Montana/Aikman had their careers cut short by injuries? Marino and Montana played to 38. Aikman only played to 34, and definitely had concussion issues, but I think Montana and Marino just kind of experienced a gradual reduction in skills.
Marino couldn't get over an achilles injury and Montana couldn't get over shoulder and elbow injuries. Neither were the same player they had been a decade earlier but both saw the playoff drop off a lot because of injuries.
EDIT: In both cases the quality of play declined but it was pretty fast and it happend after injuries (and after they had to start missing a lot of games with injuries).
Really? Montana played 14 games in 1994, going 9-5 with a 16:9 TD:INT ratio, a 60.6% completion percentage, and 3283 yards. But I was only 13 at the time so I don't have exact recollection as to what forced him to retire.
He was good but not the same player he had been three or four years before. He's missed a lot of games between 90 and 94 and he was playing in pain. There wasn't a specific injury that I can recall but he was just beat up.
I guess the fairer way to state it is "it's normal for injuries-and not just aging-to hasten a quarterback's departure from the game.
Right. And of course, age plays into injuries, both in terms of frequency, and recovery.
Manning will be "Marino with 1 Ring".
And I dont think thats a compliment. I look back at Marino and wonder how (at that time) the greatest statistical Qb could only make 1 Superbowl. I think this tarnishes(-ed) his image. I think the same will be true for Manning. How does the statistically greatest QB in history only win 1 SB. Sure its unfair when you consider he had the Pats, Steelers and often a very good Chargers team to deal with....but it is what it is. It tarnishes Mannings career in a way Brady (even if he loses this weekend) and Elway (2-3 in the big game) wont face.
And I dont think thats a compliment. I look back at Marino and wonder how (at that time) the greatest statistical Qb could only make 1 Superbowl. I think this tarnishes(-ed) his image. I think the same will be true for Manning. How does the statistically greatest QB in history only win 1 SB. Sure its unfair when you consider he had the Pats, Steelers and often a very good Chargers team to deal with....but it is what it is. It tarnishes Mannings career in a way Brady (even if he loses this weekend) and Elway (2-3 in the big game) wont face.