Should the Colts have kept Manning?

[Moranis]

Back in the 2012 off-season, the Colts were sitting there with Andrew Luck going to be there with the 1st pick and a decision to make on Manning.  Obviously they chose Luck, which isn't a terrible call at all given how good Luck has looked and he will be around a long time, but they had to cut Manning so they got nothing for him.  Say they decide to go with Manning and trade Luck (I don't see a real argument for keeping both, that just seems silly so I'm disregarding that possibility).  Let's assume that they make the same trade the Skins and Rams did for #2 that same year.

So the Colts would have received #6 and #39 in the 2012 draft and the following 2 first round picks from the Skins (they were 22 and 2, but likely with Luck that 2014 pick is not #2).

Looking back and with complete hindsight (i.e. you know for sure Manning is going to be relatively healthy for the next 4 years at least), do you still make the same decision or do you go with Manning and trade Luck for the additional assets?

[PhoSita]

They absolutely did the right thing in moving on from Manning.  Peyton would not have been able to keep playing behind that offensive line -- imagine Peyton getting hit as often as Luck has in his career so far -- and their defense was not going to be good enough to keep them going as Peyton continued to decline, anyway.

That's not to say the Colts have handled everything since moving on from Peyton the right way.  It's a horribly managed team.  They draft poorly and in general focus on getting skill position players instead of building up the most important parts of the team -- the o-line, d-line, and secondary.

[Moranis]

They absolutely did the right thing in moving on from Manning.  Peyton would not have been able to keep playing behind that offensive line -- imagine Peyton getting hit as often as Luck has in his career so far -- and their defense was not going to be good enough to keep them going as Peyton continued to decline, anyway.

That's not to say the Colts have handled everything since moving on from Peyton the right way.  It's a horribly managed team.  They draft poorly and in general focus on getting skill position players instead of building up the most important parts of the team -- the o-line, d-line, and secondary.

The thing is, those 3 extra firsts and an extra 2nd could have easily provided a lot depth and skill to the defense (and who is to say that if Luck and not Griffin was available that the trade wouldn't have been even more in the asset department).  And those guys would have been on relatively cheap contracts to counteract Manning's.  That is what makes the hypothetical so interesting. 

[sofutomygaha]

With the luxury of hindsight, it almost holds up.

I'm a former Redskins fan (I'm done. I actually do mean that. When they eventually start winning again I won't be back) who really, really wanted us to acquire Manning that year rather than trying to draft our QB.

I don't think Luck was a sure thing. No QB prospect is ever a sure thing. Sure things only exist in hype and in hindsight.

They really must have thought Manning was done. That's the only way you can justify it. They had no hope that he was going to come back to form. If that had been the case, it would be very defensible.

As it is, though, what they could have had was Greg Robinson, Alec Ogletree, Stedman Bailey,  Zac Stacy, Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Isaiah Pead and Rokevious Watkins? No pro bowlers in that group yet, but a lot of solid-to-good young players. The picks could easily have worked out better. I don't think they'd trade Luck for that group today.

[PhoSita]

They absolutely did the right thing in moving on from Manning.  Peyton would not have been able to keep playing behind that offensive line -- imagine Peyton getting hit as often as Luck has in his career so far -- and their defense was not going to be good enough to keep them going as Peyton continued to decline, anyway.

That's not to say the Colts have handled everything since moving on from Peyton the right way.  It's a horribly managed team.  They draft poorly and in general focus on getting skill position players instead of building up the most important parts of the team -- the o-line, d-line, and secondary.

The thing is, those 3 extra firsts and an extra 2nd could have easily provided a lot depth and skill to the defense (and who is to say that if Luck and not Griffin was available that the trade wouldn't have been even more in the asset department).  And those guys would have been on relatively cheap contracts to counteract Manning's.  That is what makes the hypothetical so interesting.

Well, when I say "the most important parts of the team," I should be clear that I mean after the quarterback.  Obviously the make-or-break part of your team is the QB.  Andrew Luck has his faults, but he's a franchise quarterback and should be for a long time. 

I think they assumed Luck would be more or less as good for them as Peyton would have been while they tried to rebuild the infrastructure of their team, and that he'd be good for them long after Peyton retired.  That seems about right, to me.

Perhaps they could have traded Luck for a boatload of assets and use those assets to revitalize the team around Manning and make another run or two at the Super Bowl.  I doubt it.  That team lost so many games without Manning because the team around him had rotted and decayed.  The Colts are still dealing with that. 

Their inability to draft well and make good personnel decisions got them to that point, and that same inability has prevented them from improving the team around Luck as they surely hoped to have done by now.  Perhaps that was part of the equation for them -- thinking, "Well, we haven't been able to use picks to keep the team going around Peyton so far, why should we think a boatload of picks will solve things now?"

It's a testament to Luck that he's been able to prop up that team despite the fact that the team around him is actually not very good.  But now he's banged up from playing behind a terrible offensive line for so long.  They better get him some protection quickly or things might spiral for them.

[Eja117]

The Colts were right to move on from Manning and the Packers were right to move on from Rogers and some day Brady will be called into the office and that will probably be right too

[wdleehi]

Draft Luck, good.



Trading a 1st for a bust RB, bad. 

[Moranis]

They absolutely did the right thing in moving on from Manning.  Peyton would not have been able to keep playing behind that offensive line -- imagine Peyton getting hit as often as Luck has in his career so far -- and their defense was not going to be good enough to keep them going as Peyton continued to decline, anyway.

That's not to say the Colts have handled everything since moving on from Peyton the right way.  It's a horribly managed team.  They draft poorly and in general focus on getting skill position players instead of building up the most important parts of the team -- the o-line, d-line, and secondary.

The thing is, those 3 extra firsts and an extra 2nd could have easily provided a lot depth and skill to the defense (and who is to say that if Luck and not Griffin was available that the trade wouldn't have been even more in the asset department).  And those guys would have been on relatively cheap contracts to counteract Manning's.  That is what makes the hypothetical so interesting.

Well, when I say "the most important parts of the team," I should be clear that I mean after the quarterback.  Obviously the make-or-break part of your team is the QB.  Andrew Luck has his faults, but he's a franchise quarterback and should be for a long time. 

I think they assumed Luck would be more or less as good for them as Peyton would have been while they tried to rebuild the infrastructure of their team, and that he'd be good for them long after Peyton retired.  That seems about right, to me.

Perhaps they could have traded Luck for a boatload of assets and use those assets to revitalize the team around Manning and make another run or two at the Super Bowl.  I doubt it.  That team lost so many games without Manning because the team around him had rotted and decayed.  The Colts are still dealing with that. 

Their inability to draft well and make good personnel decisions got them to that point, and that same inability has prevented them from improving the team around Luck as they surely hoped to have done by now.  Perhaps that was part of the equation for them -- thinking, "Well, we haven't been able to use picks to keep the team going around Peyton so far, why should we think a boatload of picks will solve things now?"

It's a testament to Luck that he's been able to prop up that team despite the fact that the team around him is actually not very good.  But now he's banged up from playing behind a terrible offensive line for so long.  They better get him some protection quickly or things might spiral for them.

The thing is the Colts have been 11-5 all three of Luck's years and Luck while a good QB has not been better than Manning those three years.  You add in the extra talent from whatever they got from Luck and you could easily see Indy competing for titles the last 4 years. 

As for your sacks argument, Luck has taken a lot of sacks, but one could argue that is more his game and he is just learning.  Manning rarely gets sacked.  Denver had 42 sacks the year before Manning, had just 21 Manning's first year.  Manning is just so good about getting rid of the ball that he doesn't get sacked much.  That comes with experience (for another example of that see the Pats - 07 Brady sacked 21 times, 09 Brady sacked 16 times, 08 Cassel sacked 47 times).

The Colts have a terrible GM and that has certainly affected the current team, but I do believe in hindsight (again knowing Manning would be healthy), the Colts might have been better off sticking with Manning and cashing in the Luck trade bonanza.