Peyton Manning Race: It will be a photo-finish

[detlef]

I get what you are saying. In the same token nobody really thought of Cassel, Kolb, Hasselbach, A. Brookes, Schaub, or Flynn as being good until they were developed. Manning is singularly focused. It is what makes him great. Take that away and it might be like cutting sampson's hair or taking away my beer.

 

Both Schaub and Kolb had some pedigree coming out of college. Kolb, in particular, was specifically drafted to be the QB of the future. Time will tell whether Flynn will be a good starter. Hell, the jury is still out on Kolb. So that leaves a rather short list of guys who we had no idea would be good being developed by the entire NFL over about the last 10 years or so.

[Papajohn]

C'mon.

 

Of course it does. Its a matter of the degree of its importance.

 

Money matters to every professional athlete in history except, apparently, to Peyton Manning. Peyton just wants another ring. Peyton just wants to go to the team with the best chance at winning the Super Bowl. Peyton just wants to go where he and his family are comfortable. Peyton isn't trying to drive up his contract price - oh no, he wouldn't do that. Peyton would play for the league minimum with incentives.Hell, it's Peyton - he's such a competititor and loves the game so much that he'd play for free.

 

I, unlike many people around here, do not know Peyton Manning. So I suppose that it is possible that "$ doesn't matter" to him and that he's willing to go back out on the field, with all the risks involved, without consideration of the money that he is going to make. And its possible that the tour and these discussions are really only to allow the teams involved to explain to Manning their visions of the future. But until Manning announces what his non-negotiable financial requirements are, or says that he is donating the money to charity or playing for free, you won't convince me that money isn't an important consideration to Manning.

 

 

I couldn't have said it any better myself. Great post.

[Bronco Billy]

Both Schaub and Kolb had some pedigree coming out of college. Kolb, in particular, was specifically drafted to be the QB of the future. Time will tell whether Flynn will be a good starter. Hell, the jury is still out on Kolb. So that leaves a rather short list of guys who we had no idea would be good being developed by the entire NFL over about the last 10 years or so.

 

 

I'd add Brady, M Hasselbeck, Warner, and Romo to that list right off the top of my head. I'm sure we could find a few more.

[detlef]

I'd add Brady, M Hasselbeck, Warner, and Romo to that list right off the top of my head. I'm sure we could find a few more.

 

We only get to count Hasselbeck once. Brady obviously belongs on that list and so does Romo. Warner, on the other hand, may be more of St. Louis just lucking out. Dude kicked around the NFL and AFL for a couple of years before spending 1 year as the 3rd string QB behind Banks and Bono. Then, after they ditched the other two and the guy they'd gone out to get as their franchise QB hurt himself in the pre-season, Warner stepped in and the rest was history. Since this is about "developing QBs", I'm not sure you can give St. Louis a ton of credit for that.

 

Regardless, add him if you want. That takes us to about 6-7 and now we're back as far as 1999. I'll give you Jeff Garcia and assume there's a couple of others to make an even 10. That means, in about 13 or so years, there have been about 10 or so QBs nobody saw coming that the 32 teams in the NFL have developed into bonafide starters. In other words, Indy has company in not managing to turn the likes of Sorgi and Painter into good QBs.

 

And do me a favor here, if you're going to bring up other names, let's limit it to guys who did more than start a season or two. Let's leave it to guys who actually ended up being good.

Edited March 19, 2012 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

We only get to count Hasselbeck once. Brady obviously belongs on that list and so does Romo. Warner, on the other hand, may be more of St. Louis just lucking out. Dude kicked around the NFL and AFL for a couple of years before spending 1 year as the 3rd string QB behind Banks and Bono. Then, after they ditched the other two and the guy they'd gone out to get as their franchise QB hurt himself in the pre-season, Warner stepped in and the rest was history. Since this is about "developing QBs", I'm not sure you can give St. Louis a ton of credit for that.

 

Regardless, add him if you want. That takes us to about 6-7 and now we're back as far as 1999. I'll give you Jeff Garcia and assume there's a couple of others to make an even 10. That means, in about 13 or so years, there have been about 10 or so QBs nobody saw coming that the 32 teams in the NFL have developed into bonafide starters. In other words, Indy has company in not managing to turn the likes of Sorgi and Painter into good QBs.

 

 

Orton. Fitzpatrick, and Garrard would also fit. One could argue for Gradkowski, Orlovsky, both McCowns, and Feeley as possible additions also if spot starters are included.

[detlef]

Orton. Fitzpatrick, and Garrard would also fit. One could argue for Gradkowski, Orlovsky, both McCowns, and Feeley as possible additions also if spot starters are included.

 

Both Orton and Fitzpatrick on their 3rd teams, so who gets credit for developing them? And, given the lengths you've gone to crap on Orton in previous threads, I'm having a bit of an issue with you including him. Garrard can join Brooks on the list as guys who have been barely good enough to merit mention in this discussion, but the other five journeymen you listed? C'mon. There's no point in even having this discussion if you're going to include guys like that.

 

However, that we're even already at the point where you're bringing up guys like the McCowns illustrates the point. Even if you included them, and you shouldn't, that would mean there've been about one QB per year that nobody knew about that were groomed into good starters over the last dozen+ years. Which still means not doing so is not unique to Indy.

Edited March 19, 2012 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

Both Orton and Fitzpatrick on their 3rd teams, so who gets credit for developing them? And, given the lengths you've gone to crap on Orton in previous threads, I'm having a bit of an issue with you including him. Garrard can join Brooks on the list as guys who have been barely good enough to merit mention in this discussion, but the other five journeymen you listed? C'mon. There's no point in even having this discussion if you're going to include guys like that.

 

However, that we're even already at the point where you're bringing up guys like the McCowns illustrates the point. Even if you included them, and you shouldn't, that would mean there've been about one QB per year that nobody knew about that were groomed into good starters over the last dozen+ years. Which still means not doing so is not unique to Indy.

 

 

I think you've got a pretty good point. Your argument would indicate that IND had to draft a QB more than twice since the year they drafted Manning and should have burned more than a 6th rounder on them, as they did with Sorgi and Painter. The question is, how much influence did Manning have in discouraging the drafting/development of QBs in IND during his tenure?

[Caveman_Nick]

Both Schaub and Kolb had some pedigree coming out of college. Kolb, in particular, was specifically drafted to be the QB of the future. Time will tell whether Flynn will be a good starter. Hell, the jury is still out on Kolb. So that leaves a rather short list of guys who we had no idea would be good being developed by the entire NFL over about the last 10 years or so.

 

 

I see what you mean, but it is hard to ignore the fact that if teams really thought these guys would be top notch (Kolb, Schaub, etc), then they would have been early first round picks. QBs that are not first rounders are typically considered developmental projects to some degree or another. They have flaws, like Drew Brees who was considered to be too small to be a prototypical NFL QB. Clearly NO is glad that he is not 'prototypical'.

 

For all the guys like Schaub that got picked later and worked out there are many that were picked but did not. I think that an interesting study would be to look at how many QBs are picked in rounds 2-4 historically. I would guess that the number is disproportionately low to the numbers picked in rounds 1, 5-7. That does suggest that these guys are better developmental prospects than the later round guys, but not players that the team thinks will definitely become effective starters.

[detlef]

I think you've got a pretty good point. Your argument would indicate that IND had to draft a QB more than twice since the year they drafted Manning and should have burned more than a 6th rounder on them, as they did with Sorgi and Painter. The question is, how much influence did Manning have in discouraging the drafting/development of QBs in IND during his tenure?

 

Perhaps plenty. But it may have simply been a matter of them being one of the few teams in the league who had an amazingly good QB whom the opposing Ds rarely laid a finger on. That, as a team you figure, "let's just load up on weapons because QB is not a need." And it wasn't. And, like when the Niners kept dicking with the salary cap to load up for another run, it came at a cost when things finally came home to roost. But it's a price teams pay because they want to get over the top right now.

 

Them failing to develop a decent back-up didn't come back to bite them until this past year. In the mean time, they enjoyed an amazing run. One that I'm sure they would have preferred resulted in more trophies, but ignoring the back-up QB position didn't cost them any trophies. Failing to put a decent D on the field did. Which is why I agreed with you that, perhaps paying Manning came at the expense of getting enough talent everywhere else but not so much that them ignoring the QB position should be thought of as that big a failure.

 

 

I see what you mean, but it is hard to ignore the fact that if teams really thought these guys would be top notch (Kolb, Schaub, etc), then they would have been early first round picks. QBs that are not first rounders are typically considered developmental projects to some degree or another. They have flaws, like Drew Brees who was considered to be too small to be a prototypical NFL QB. Clearly NO is glad that he is not 'prototypical'.

 

For all the guys like Schaub that got picked later and worked out there are many that were picked but did not. I think that an interesting study would be to look at how many QBs are picked in rounds 2-4 historically. I would guess that the number is disproportionately low to the numbers picked in rounds 1, 5-7. That does suggest that these guys are better developmental prospects than the later round guys, but not players that the team thinks will definitely become effective starters.

 

Perhaps it's because I'm in ACC land, but I recall plenty of talk about how ATL got the steal of the draft when they grabbed him in the 3rd and Kolb barely fell out of the 1st round. Brees, also was heralded as a great pick by SD. That they traded away the pick ATL used on Vick, got LT2 and still managed to get a really nice QB at the beginning of the 2nd.

 

Obviously, none of those 3 were thought of as "can't miss" or they would have gone top 10 or so. But it's not as if anyone paying attantion was floored when they emerged, which, btw, I'm not sure we can actually yet say about Kolb.

[muck]

I find myself wondering if the players' union would even sign off on Peyton signing a league minimum deal w/ loads of incentives... They've kaboshed contracts before that didn't fit with their definition of 'fair'.

[bpwallace49]

This is taking forever . . . . I sure hope this carousel ends soon and he signs.

[detlef]

I find myself wondering if the players' union would even sign off on Peyton signing a league minimum deal w/ loads of incentives... They've kaboshed contracts before that didn't fit with their definition of 'fair'.

 

I'm about certain they would. Odd, considering that any money a team saves on Manning, they're required to pay to someone else, but they'd veto a sweetheart deal for sure.

[Azazello1313]

If it's about winning, then it's San Francisco. If it's about anything else, it's Tennessee.

 

you nailed it.

[whomper]

Its Elway by a nose !

 

http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/melbourne-cup-photo-finish.jpg

Edited March 19, 2012 by whomper

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Both Schaub and Kolb had some pedigree coming out of college. Kolb, in particular, was specifically drafted to be the QB of the future. Time will tell whether Flynn will be a good starter. Hell, the jury is still out on Kolb. So that leaves a rather short list of guys who we had no idea would be good being developed by the entire NFL over about the last 10 years or so.

 

 

You are now just trying to win an argument that is not even developing. You are arguing that a leopard will change its spots after being told that spots are going out of style. I have argued that there is no evidence leopards can do so while there is some evidence that certain rare octopi have and can.

 

If it helps I concede your point. There is some percentage chance that at the end of his career the player that is returning to the game to accomplish something he finds lacking may take some time out of that single minded pursuit to devote himself to his eventual replacement though he has never done so before nor has he in any way indicated that this would be of interest to him. Certainly there is a chance. I would even say there is a large enough possibility of this that Lloyd Dobler could get exited about it.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Its Elway by a nose !

 

http://www.totalpros...hoto-finish.jpg

 

 

Nice photo of Elway and Sarah Jessica Parker

[detlef]

You are now just trying to win an argument that is not even developing.

 

Now that's not very fair. The assertion has been made by a number of people that somehow Manning was particularly bad at developing QBs during Manning's 14 years there. Now, if that's the case, that would mean that there's a nice long list of relatively unknown QB prospects that were developed by other teams during that time. I'm merely pointing out that list is not very long and think it is rather fair to ask that Kolb (who was actually drafted just outside the 1st round so may not qualify as relatively unknown prospect and, actually it might be a bit premature to include him in the success story category) and Flynn (was a late rounder but, again, jury is still out) not be included in the discussion. I, personally, think that Schaub had some run coming out of college, but whatever.

 

At any rate, the point remains, Indy has plenty of company in terms of not developing a QB out of nowhere but are very much alone in having a great excuse as to why they didn/t. That being, that they had a very durable QB who was considered perhaps the best of his generation. So, to make a big deal out of Indy's failure to address the back-up QB position better than they did, and people are doing just that, seems pretty silly.

 

If you want to talk to someone who's "just trying to win an argument", talk to the guy who is trying to include Dan Orvlosky in the list of QB success stories.

Edited March 20, 2012 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

Now that's not very fair. The assertion has been made by a number of people that somehow Manning was particularly bad at developing QBs during Manning's 14 years there. Now, if that's the case, that would mean that there's a nice long list of relatively unknown QB prospects that were developed by other teams during that time.

 

I'd say that this basis of your argument is a false premise. Other teams' development of QBs and IND's development of QBs are mutually exclusive. Other teams can be variously good or bad at developing varying numbers of QBs to varying degrees, and IND can still be awful at developing backups. At the very least, IND was intentionally negligent. Even GB with Favre and NE with Brady have drafted QBs well in advance of the 6th round, and they had every reason to feel as much security at the position as IND. Yet both those teams have spun off QBs who have become starters by choice elsewhere.

 

Not sure you can find a basis for arguing otherwise when IND spends only two 6th rounders on QBs since acquiring Manning over a decade ago, and then the subsequent demonstrable lack of capability of both Sorgi and Painter when they were given opportunities to play in regular season games.

[detlef]

I'd say that this basis of your argument is a false premise. Other teams' development of QBs and IND's development of QBs are mutually exclusive. Other teams can be variously good or bad at developing varying numbers of QBs to varying degrees, and IND can still be awful at developing backups. At the very least, IND was intentionally negligent. Even GB with Favre and NE with Brady have drafted QBs well in advance of the 6th round, and they had every reason to feel as much security at the position as IND. Yet both those teams have spun off QBs who have become starters by choice elsewhere.

 

Not sure you can find a basis for arguing otherwise when IND spends only two 6th rounders on QBs since acquiring Manning over a decade ago, and then the subsequent demonstrable lack of capability of both Sorgi and Painter when they were given opportunities to play in regular season games.

 

I am not arguing that NE, a team who could be labeled as the most dominant team of the last 10 years, didn't handle their business better than Indy. I'm arguing that Indy's failure to address the back-up QB position wasn't reckless or irresponsible like you keep saying.

 

Quite simply, Indy had a hell of a time actually getting over the top. For all their good seasons, only one culminated in a SB title. So, if you're a GM in that position. If you have an amazing QB and yet, keep coming up just a bit short of your final goal, what do you do? Do you spend an early pick and the time it takes to develop a replacement for your single best player, or do you keep trying to surround him with as much talent as you can to get over the top? Seems like a pretty simple answer to me.

 

Again, it took 14 years for Indy to pay the price for ignoring the back-up QB position. That's a long freaking time. Turns out, it might mean that they spent exactly one year out of as many as 25 or so without a top QB. Depending, of course, on how Luck turns out. How many teams have had a top QB for 24 of 25 years? Hell, forget speculating about Luck. How many teams have had even a really, really good QB for 13 of the last 14?

 

Yet, despite the relatively small number of teams who developed a QB picked in the later rounds during Manning's tenure at Indy. Despite the fact that it took Indy 14 years to pay for not addressing Manning's back-up with a relatively high pick. For some reason, Indy, in particular screwed this up.

[bpwallace49]

IMO the lack of backup development in Indy behind Manning has a whole lot more to do with the player evaluation personnel and front office failing to GET someone of note, and then the failure of the coaching staff to hire a good QB coach to work with an develop a sufficient backup QB. The patriots drafted VERY well late in Brady and cassell and developed them over time. The Colts just drafted poorly, and then didnt invest enough in their backups, assuming that manning would be playing at a high level forever.

 

[Furd]

Manning isn't responsible for developing QBs. That was the Colts' responsibility.

 

The assertion was made that whoever could sit behind Manning for a couple of years and learn from him. The issue that arose from that (I think) was Manning's qualities as a teacher (although I suppose one can learn from watching only).

 

I wonder if anyone has asked Jim Sorgi if Manning trried to help him out.

[detlef]

IMO the lack of backup development in Indy behind Manning has a whole lot more to do with the player evaluation personnel and front office failing to GET someone of note, and then the failure of the coaching staff to hire a good QB coach to work with an develop a sufficient backup QB. The patriots drafted VERY well late in Brady and cassell and developed them over time. The Colts just drafted poorly, and then didnt invest enough in their backups, assuming that manning would be playing at a high level forever.

 

 

Which, in NFL terms, he basically did.

 

That's my point. It is being implied that Indy crapped the bed on this one despite it taking 14 years for this plan to end up costing them anything. Is a realistic expectation for teams to not skip a beat when a franchise QB moves on? That doesn't happen often, actually. Ask the fans of Miami about the post Marino years.

 

Like I said, it's the price you pay for trying to win the whole thing now. If you've got Manning, you worry about everything else. You worry about replacing him when the time comes.

[bpwallace49]

Which, in NFL terms, he basically did.

 

That's my point. It is being implied that Indy crapped the bed on this one despite it taking 14 years for this plan to end up costing them anything. Is a realistic expectation for teams to not skip a beat when a franchise QB moves on? That doesn't happen often, actually. Ask the fans of Miami about the post Marino years.

 

Like I said, it's the price you pay for trying to win the whole thing now. If you've got Manning, you worry about everything else. You worry about replacing him when the time comes.

 

 

i disagree. When you make ONE guy the focus of everything your team does on offense, you had better damn well have some insurance in case he gets hurt. Example . . . . the Green bay packers even though they had the Iron Man in Favre, routinely drafted and developed backup Qbs that went elsewhere and started. They were ensuring that if ONE guy went down, that the entire team would not suffer. That is just common sense, and what good teams do because executives need to think in longer terms than the current season.

 

Indy just crossed their fingers, and had no succession plan for a guy in his mid-thirties that had neck problems. That isnt prudent, smart or strategic at all. I am not even getting into the Aaron Rodgers situation (once in a lifetime succesion from stud to stud, IMo) but the guys liek Brunell, hasselbeck, Flynn, detmer, etc. They were not studs, but they were serviceable starters. Indy didnt even get a serviceable starter by investing a mid round pick in a guy and then take the tiem to make him better.

[detlef]

But you guys are coming off like "See, this is what you get if you put all your eggs in one basket." By "this", do you mean, after a 13 year run in which you had arguably the best QB in the league under center, Where, for what? 11 of those years you had at least 10 wins, were constantly in the play-offs and won a SB? And again, if there's a knock on the Indy run it's that it only resulted in one SB title, which in no way at all can be blamed on them not developing a good back-up QB, because dude would have been holding a clip-board the entire freaking time.

 

That, after all that, your risky ways come back to bite you in the ass 13 years later? That's Indy's ways coming back to haunt them? I wonder how many fan bases would sign up for a shaky and irresponsible run like that.

[bpwallace49]

But you guys are coming off like "See, this is what you get if you put all your eggs in one basket." By "this", do you mean, after a 13 year run in which you had arguably the best QB in the league under center, Where, for what? 11 of those years you had at least 10 wins, were constantly in the play-offs and won a SB? And again, if there's a knock on the Indy run it's that it only resulted in one SB title, which in no way at all can be blamed on them not developing a good back-up QB, because dude would have been holding a clip-board the entire freaking time.

 

That, after all that, your risky ways come back to bite you in the ass 13 years later? That's Indy's ways coming back to haunt them? I wonder how many fan bases would sign up for a shaky and irresponsible run like that.

 

 

I dont need to. "my" team in the packers thought ahead, drafted accordingly, and prudently bought insurance by having capable backup Qbs in case the starter gets hurt.

 

Ask the Bears how much they would have liked a capable backup last year to just play .500 ball until Cutler could return.

 

if you dont have fire insurance, do you look like a genius if you dont have a fire in 13 years? Or do you look like a moran when you have a fire in the 14th year?