Bloggerment: Did the Colts do the right thing with Manning?

Bloggerment: Arizona Sports 620 bloggers Rod Lakin and
Jarrett Carlen argue the Colts decision to part ways with
Peyton Manning.

Question: If Peyton Manning is going to be able to
play football this season, why would the Indianapolis
Colts release him?

---

Rod Lakin: This is the most important yet least
discussed aspect of the Colts’ quarterback proposition.
Those who agree with their decision must weigh the well-
documented volatility of the drafting process against the
proven stability of a healthy Peyton Manning. Unlike the
health question, a prima facie case is required from the
Colts side of the argument and, by extension, from their
chosen successor, Andrew Luck. The early returns from
Indianapolis (in the literal sense) provided a very strong
opening statement. Turns out Luck isn’t just really
smart, he’s also very athletic. And this is as far and as
best that those in favor of moving on to Luck can answer
the question. After all, the key word in the opening
sentence was “proposition.” Most successful business
start-ups involve risk: With Manning, you could have
taken a chance that the next 3 years will be as good as
the previous 13. Or, with Luck, you can bet that the next
13 will overcompensate for the excruciating potential of a
successful post-Manning Super Bowl run during the next 3.
I’ll side with the long-term.

Jarrett Carlen: If we are performing under the
assumption that Peyton Manning is healthy enough to play
next season, then I think it would also be safe to assume
that Peyton will return to his previous form as an elite
quarterback. After all, he is only one healthy season
removed from an MVP and Super Bowl appearance. To me, this
boils down to the old saying “a bird in the hand is worth
two in the bush.” Why toss away a healthy Peyton Manning
for a QB who, best case scenario, may one day be almost as
good as him? Mr. Lakin’s argument is that he’d rather
gamble on the next 13 years with Luck, rather than the
next 3 with Manning. The question I ask, is why can’t the
Colts have both? Or if not 3, how about 1? The two
examples most comparable in NFL history involve the 49ers
with Joe Montana and Steve Young, and the Packers with
Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers. In both cases, the
legendary QB was eventually pushed out in favor of the
young up-and-comer. EVENTUALLY. Young and Rodgers gained
valuable knowledge and experience learning behind the
veteran. A year or two sitting behind arguably the
greatest QB ever to play would only have helped Luck and
the Colts. Luck, because the pressure is not immediately
on him to perform, and the Colts because Manning’s trade
stock can only go up following a healthy, productive
season.

Rod Lakin: Well, I think you’ve buried the lead.
The only compelling part of that argument is the closing
sentence – an option, by the way, already closed off by
Manning. From a business perspective, it would be nice
for the Colts to be given the opportunity for a Montana or
even Favre-type return package (if I can borrow from your
analogies). I’d even concede that it was very foolish of
Mr. Irsay to rule out this scenario from the beginning.
But if you can assimilate a point as easy as that, you
should also be able to concede the following: Peyton
Manning is on the record as saying that he believes Andrew
Luck should start from Year 1. It was the opportunity
afforded to him, and it was an opportunity, however
delayed, handed to his brother. Unlike in the case of
Favre in 08′ and especially Montana in 1993, Manning
wouldn’t be walking back into Super Bowl conditions.
Prior to Favre’s first pre-retirement panic, the Green Bay
Packers were a kick away from the NFC Championship. In
fact, Montana was given the very chance that you’ve
proposed for Peyton – throwing passes in the season finale
for a 14-2 49ers team. If you flip the records, there’s
the nearly parallel scenario this season between the 2-13
Colts and the Houston Texans. Only Manning (per Don
Banks’ excruciating portrayal in SI) couldn’t make it on
the field for that one, and the “showcase” argument was
rightly taken off the table. So you end up exactly where
I left off: Draft a young quarterback to push through the
wreckage of a broken model or keep an old one in place in
a short-term effort to circumvent the damage. In other
words, only one of us can make a progressive case.

Jarrett Carlen’s counter: Whether or not Luck is
good enough to start right away is not the point (Luck,
btw, a player who went from the greatest prospect since
John Elway to a player that some now think is not even the
best QB available in the draft). It’s whether he should
start right away. For every Peyton Manning, Troy Aikman or
Cam Newton, there are several Joey Harringtons, Ryan
Leafs, David Carrs and Tim Couchs – can’t miss QB
prospects who start right away behind a terrible line for
a terrible team, get their confidence and body shaken and
never become what they could have been had they sat like a
Rodgers, McNair or Young. This Colts team is awful; you
admit as much and it’s proven by the fact they have the #1
pick. The harm from taking tons of sacks and losing game
after game would far outweigh any benefit gained from the
experience of starting from day 1. You say the Colts’
options are to “draft a young quarterback to push through
the wreckage of a broken model or keep an old one in place
in a short-term effort to circumvent the damage.” This is
not the case because it doesn’t have to be one or the
other. No one is arguing that they shouldn’t draft Luck.
Keeping Peyton is better for the short term – The Colts
return to competitiveness, Peyton raises his trade stock
and Luck is not forced into starting right away for a bad
team – and better for the long-term. Luck gets to sit,
watch and learn, the Colts get another year to add pieces
around him so that he is not thrown out naked when he does
start, and the Colts can flip Peyton during or after the
season for players and picks. Delaying the Andrew Luck era
would not be a harmful thing. The Colts would instead be
insuring that when the Luck era does start, whether mid-
season or next season, he would have the best chance to
succeed. And remember, I am arguing why they should have
kept Peyton, obviously they have decided they aren’t and
that Irsay ruled out keeping or trading him is irrelevant.

Rod Lakin: Well, that was a thoroughly confusing
response. It is true that quarterback prospects have both
succeeded as first year starters and as more long-term
projects. It is not true that there’s a consistent
correlation between bad offensive line play and the long-
term success or failure of said prospects. For example, I
couldn’t say that David Carr taking 76 sacks in 16 games
during his rookie season of 2002 was much of a morale
booster. I also wouldn’t be able to claim that Joey
Harrington’s taking just 8 sacks during 14 games of that
very same rookie season laid the groundwork for any more
productivity from the position. In point of fact, both
were nearly identical in their futility as starters that
season, and neither has reversed the trend in the 9 years
since. And your argument unravels even more from there:
Let’s say that the Colts are as “awful,” as you describe.
Or, more specifically, let’s say their offensive line is
just as bad as Carr’s 2002 Texans. If that were the case,
I would be inclined to agree that Andrew Luck should not
be thrown into an NFL rookie season, piñata style. Where
we part ways, however, is at the absurd notion that a 36
year-old quarterback coming off four neck procedures,
should be. It’s an idea that’s irrationality could only
be rivaled three paragraphs earlier with the suggestion
that “Manning’s trade stock can only go up following a
healthy, productive season.” What exactly is the going
rate for incapacitated future Hall of Fame quarterbacks
these days? Moreover, it’s contradictory to suggest that
Manning could “raise his trade stock,” while “Luck is not
forced into starting right away for a bad team.” You’ll
have to choose which one of those you believe would have
(or will have) been the case. In the interim, a more
sensible conclusion prevails: Retaining the franchise
quarterback, all while drafting the new one would not only
be a competing vision, it would clearly be an
irreconcilable one. Give credit to Jim Irsay for
recognizing as much and for not hedging this bet.

Jarrett Carlen: Again you are ignoring the basic
premise of the question, which is why would the Colts let
him go if he were healthy enough to play? A healthy
Peyton Manning is an elite QB, one that can keep the Colts
competitive while mentoring a young Andrew Luck. As for
his age, the Colts obviously did not fear his age when
they signed him to a long-term contract just one year ago.
And you ask what is the going rate for an incapacitated
future hall of fame QB? He won’t be incapacitated if he’s
healthy enough to play, and as for the going rate? In case
you haven’t been watching the news or listening to the
fine folks on Arizona Sports 620 lately, it appears as if
there are a dozen or so NFL teams ready to back up the
truck to acquire him. Some teams are even willing to dump
their established QBs to get him. The bottom line is
this: the Colts had Manning. They also have the #1 pick,
which they will use to draft Luck. My argument is simple:
The Colts would be better off keeping both and letting
Luck sit a year and learn behind the greatest QB of all
time rather than throw him to wolves right away. Your
argument seems to be that it would be better to start Luck
right away, even though he is surrounded by a lack of
talent at any offensive position; that they should give up
the rights to a QB in Manning who just one season ago they
thought enough of to lock up for many years, and to forgo
any chance of getting any sort of compensation for
Manning. I’m not sure I can agree with that. One thing I
will give you – very impressive vocabulary, it may blind
the reader from your lack of logic. Did you get a Merriam
Webster’s page-a-day calendar for Christmas?

Follow @Vincemarotta