It was more the reporting of Manning being shocked and disappointed with the Polians departure. Maybe I am seeing something that isn't there. I just think that the Manning camp has been in get Peyton out of Indy for the past couple of months.Originally Posted by George Anderson
I saw the whole Manning was shocked over the Polian firing as being comical. One thing is for sure, there was a bit of a rift between Polian and Manning and don't think for a minute Manning doesn't have the pull to get rid of anyone in the organization he doesn't like.
"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard
Where did Buck mention a "healthy" Manning? Seems to me you're trapping him by slipping that word in there. I can't speak for him but my guess is his point is that Peyton may never be "healthy" again. He'll always be an upper 30s QB who's had three neck surgeries. If Peyton never plays another down his comparison of Peyton and Schaub will be prophetic
This is littered with a lot of large reaches and irresponsible assertions on your part IMO.
The Colts didn't "suck for luck" on purpose, they just weren't any good without Peyton. They certainly wanted to win their games, they just didn't.
Archie never said Peyton wouldn't want to play with Luck, he said "I don't think it'd necessarily be great for either one." That's a large difference than "Peyton wouldn't want to play with Luck on the team." As another posted pointed out, unless you have an exact quote of Peyton saying he wanted out of town, you're unfairly speculating and trying to pass it off as fact.
As for your claim that you'd take Schaub over Manning heading forward, let's just say that I'm glad you're not the GM of a team I root for.
The Colts were one of the worst football teams I have seen in recent history. They didn't "suck for luck" on purpose but there were games in which they looked like they gave up. It was worse than some of the Bengals seasons from the 90's.
When I head what Archie said the first think that came to my mind was the Mannings were going to attempt to get Peyton moved. It was said the porper way but it still didn't leave me with any doubt that, at least Archie, wanted Peyton somewhere else next year.Archie never said Peyton wouldn't want to play with Luck, he said "I don't think it'd necessarily be great for either one." That's a large difference than "Peyton wouldn't want to play with Luck on the team." As another posted pointed out, unless you have an exact quote of Peyton saying he wanted out of town, you're unfairly speculating and trying to pass it off as fact.
Your going to bet that a 36 year old Manning coming off of 3 neck surgeries is going to be a better QB going forward then that is your perrogative. I wouldn't make that gamble. There becomes a time when even the greatest QB's can avoid father time. Peyton's is creaping up on him, maybe quickened with a few neck surgeries and a year away from the game.As for your claim that you'd take Schaub over Manning heading forward, let's just say that I'm glad you're not the GM of a team I root for.
I think most teams would take Manning at 75% over Schaub, but I am a Colts fan. Buck has made comments about Manning before, thats fine he doesn't like the guy I get it.
When I see the 2016 Reds, I see a 100 loss team and no direction.
If I'm Peyton Manning and I know I only have 2-3 years left, I'm throwing a fit if my team doesn't trade the #1 pick which could fetch a haul that plugs anywhere from 3-5 holes. From his standpoint, picking another QB that doesn't help the team until after his retirement makes no sense and not a situation I could see him living with.
I am pulling a Carson Palmer and demand being traded to San Francisco.
Trading the #1 pick would bring a massive haul as of now. And if you are high on Landry Jones or Matt Barkley it would make sesne. But this is directed at a Colts fan, what are their needs? From my perspective they need a RB, WR, DL, LB, DB.
OL. DL. DB. With a decent line they can run the ball. If they were able to address those needs in the draft they could probably resign Wayne. They may still need another WR, but I could live with what they have. ALso they need to figure out what the deal with Dallas Clark was, Peyton Manning's a fantastic quarterback, but he doesn't cause a TE to drop passes in absentia.
A 36 yr old 75% Manning over Schaub? Let me give this little tidbit. At the beginning of the yr I was debating my Fantasy Football draft and how I'd rank the QBs and I got stuck on Schaub and Peyton. If it came down to those two, which one do I draft? It was a tough one. As it turns out, I was able to get my hands on Tom Brady so it never came down to that but it was a tough call.
So tell me, if you're in a Keeper League, do you draft Peyton ahead of Schaub for 2012?
Let's not pretend that Schaub is the picture of health himself. Remember, these are the first games that Peyton has missed. It seems Schaub misses games almost every year.
2013 Record at games attended: 0-1
Is there anything in Peyton's contract that makes him difficult to trade?
Fantasy football is just that a fantasy. Has Matt Shaub ever played a full season? He gets injured alot. In real life football I think my chances of reaching the Super Bowl next year are better with a 36 year old Manning if he comes back at 75% strength and a 31 year old Shaub.
When I see the 2016 Reds, I see a 100 loss team and no direction.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2012/sto...ck-sources-say
Irsay wants to take Luck it appears. Dungy said the same earlier on Football Night in America.
This news to me is thrilling, if true!
Yes. A $28mill bonus check that needs to be written before anyone knows if Peyton can play again:
Mort also reports both Irsay and Manning have emphatically denied discussing pushing back the March 8 due date for Manning's $28 million option bonus. The duo will "jointly determine" Manning's future, and the matter of Manning's potential release remains a "medical issue" for the time being. Our best guess remains that Manning will be released just before or on March 8. Jan 8 - 11:44 AMSource: Chris Mortensen on Twitter
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote