explain

I'm really not sure why Painter is on the roster at this point.

I defended him 2 years ago when people were ripping him for looking awful to blow the perfect season vs the Jets, and I stand by that. At the time, he was a rookie playing with a bunch of backups against a very good defense in the worst spot imaginable. It just wasn't a fair spot to judge his play, and people were all over him.

Two years later, he doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt. You would expect to see some significant growth, and it just isn't very apparent that he is improving at all. It is year 3 as the primary backup, if you can't step in and start then what exactly are you being groomed for?

Personally, I though Orlovsky outplayed him in the preseason.

The Colts have gotten away with carrying scrub backup QBs for a long time, they've probably run pretty good to get by as long as they have. From this point forward though, they need to acknowledge that Peyton is getting older and have someone competent around to back him up.


As far as Collins goes, when he was actually throwing the ball he wasn't half bad but his pocket presence was awful. The blocking schemes didn't do him any favors (Clark alone with Williams? WTF?) , but he needs to see some of the pressure coming and either step up or at very least tuck the ball away.

Ehhh, it would take a lot of explaining and I gotta go run some errands.

But if we assume a few things (say since 2005)

1) Peyton "doesn't" get hurt. He does this by getting rid of the ball and rarely getting hit.
2) The Colts, with Peyton, have been potential SB winners basically every year.
3) Peyton is "expensive", eats up a large chunk of salary cap (though justifiably so)

IMO, knowing these things, if I'm going to spend a finite amount of money on player assets then I think it's correct to spend that money on weapons for Peyton and/or defensive value, rather than burying value in a backup who will rarely, if ever, be utilized. Additionally, if that back-up does have to be utilized, he may not even be capable of winning a Super Bowl anyway.

So it's more of a highly "boom or bust" strategy, which, in the NFL, under the circumstances of this particular team, I think is the correct long-term strategy when you've got a single asset of Peyton Manning's caliber.

Obviously, going forward the strategy needs to change, since this fluke injury of his is highly unpredictable and he is getting closer and closer to retirement (whether that be involuntarily premature or not).

the problem with that theory is that backup's don't have to cost a lot, and it's a position you need to fill anyways, so you might as well have someone decent. if you get lucky you can even peddle him down the line, ala Kolb/Cassel

the salary difference between a 3rd round guy and a 6th round guy is pretty small, and QB is such a critical position that to be completely unprepared if Peyton gets hit by a bus just can't be right.

edit: all that said, it's really hard to have a great backup waiting, so that's not really a fair expectation. but I do think a fair expectation is better than "call some recently quasi retired FA sitting at home and make him your starter"

The QB position is expensive. A good backup will cost "a lot" relatively speaking.

I don't think the Colts were viable SB options with just a "decent" backup, like Kolb or Cassel. I don't think they win a SB with a 3rd rounder.

I think it was correct of them to skimp on the #2, #3 guys and spend that money elsewhere. More/better weapons for Manning and/or better defenders.

How many teams are viable SB winners with their #2 QB? (Philly last year if we call Vick #2?). Not even sure '08 Pats were viable, and Cassel stepped in and played "lights out" for all intents and purposes. I don't think Indy's machine outside of Peyton is as smooth as that of New England's. Manning was just too large a chunk of his team's value imo and if he went down I'm just not sure a #2 brings enough value to the table to negate having that value somewhere else for when Peyton was healthy (which was basically always, until this fluke thing).

The Colts could have easily binked 3 rings with backups named Sorgi and Painter.

Keep in mind, this strategy assumes a goal of basically "The ring is all that matters". I have no idea if this was Irsay/Polian's goal this entire time but I wouldn't doubt it. If their goal was "make the playoffs every year then see what happens" then yeah they should have been carrying a better backup, but that is kind of a -EV strategy imo when Manning is on the team. This team is just a very historically rare case.

New dumb question. Assuming perfect gameday health (he had a pretty bad shoulder injury last year), how many wins do the Colts gain or lose by skipping Collins and calling up Jim Sorgi?

Surely the transition to the Colts "system" wouldn't be as large and at 30 Sorgi isn't dead yet. It wouldn't have cost them 4mm either.

I think the Jim Sorgi ship has sailed. Something has to be said for the fact that the Giants had no intention of keeping him on their roster with a short offseason.

And KC's ship is still afloat?

Hey man, I'm not evaluating the two but you got a good guy that knows what he is doing. Unless its purely an ego thing, which is not the Colts organization, the fact that they wanted to go with Collins over Sorgi tells me all that I need to know about Sorgi.

The Giants not resigning him is just another piece of information. Though there clearly might be more to that than I know. Such as a young guy on the Giants roster or Giants just going with a cheaper option, ect. That stuff I don't know.

It's going to tilt me to see all the fair weather fans this year but I guess we needed a season to weed em out

Jax would kill for fair weather fans.

You're assuming a QB goes down for a year-ending injury. Brady did like 7 minutes into the season, but that is beyond rare. The Steelers had Charlie Batch hanging in there to steer the ship admirably when Big Ben was suspended, and they went to the Super Bowl. The Colts have never even bothered to develop a single person who could run the offense for a full game if Peyton missed a game with a stubbed foot. Curtis Painter was never expected to do anything other than mop-up duty, you at least need someone who can win ONE game if Peyton is hurt. But Peyton was indestructible, so no one needed to explore this possibility, I guess.

Well managed teams prepare for all contingencies, the Colts did not, and it's the worst case scenario, so here they are. Also, this "fluke" thing might come with Peyton's age, they have no plans for a post-Peyton future. Fantastic news for Texans fans like you.

Paying a decent backup for an entire season who will be used for 1 game is an even worse/less-efficient plan.

again you're making general statements here. 3rd round draft picks don't make make a lot, Jeff Mallets total contract is like $3m spread over 4 years. Brian Hoyer (undrafted FA) makes the NFL minimum of like $512k. I think lots of teams have guys like that hanging out who woud probably play in an emergency situation, guys who have been in the system for a while and could at least make it through a couple games.

(I'm not trying to say the Pats are doing it correctly, who knows). a guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick made $500k ish per year, then the Bengals signed him to be their backup for $927k. that is barely more than the NFL min you need to pay anyone at any position...I think you're overrating the cap hit you need to take to pay a backup

I think the Pats do a good job developing cheap backups, but they still take chances as well. Hoyer backed up as a rookie in 2009 and the Pats likely would have been screwed if Brady went down again.

Even Cassel might have been a problem his first year or two as backup, but by the time he had to play he had played 3 or 4 years in the system.

Cleo Lemon though.

3rd round picks don't make a lot for a reason. They probably aren't able to carry a bad team in a good starter's stead.

If I'm over-rating the cap hit to carry a better backup, you are likely not taking into account the opportunity cost of using that money on a starter.

Again, I think the Colts are just a super-rare case. Manning is so valuable over a replacement (and their defense you could argue is built around playing from ahead) that the system is basically not fixable* if he's out for any noticeable period. All the guys who could carry that team to the SB in his stead are all starting on other teams. And there are only a small handful of guys.

*Fixable here means "able to get to the Super Bowl", which is what I think they have been perennially capable of with a healthy Manning.

I just think you're being too binary about this. even with Manning the Colts are big dogs to win a SB, I forget the odds but I think they were like 15:1 when they first came out in February. (favorites being like 5:1).

and you're ignoring the situation where Peyton gets some minor injury and has to sit out a few games, but he can come back and get into the playoff hunt. with no backup at all you are screwed here...Packers had Flynn to lean on last year, and although it didn't end up being particularly important, you can easily see how if he has play another game or 2, it could be the difference between missing the playoffs and getting in (w/ Rodgers). Flynn was a totally capable backup who could have won those games, maybe someone else couldnt

I mean Matt Flynn was taken 209th overall. Painter, 201st. Do you really think when Green Bay drafted him they thought Flynn was like a great backup solution? I think they may have gotten a bit lucky with how he's played (but I guess Kidcolin would call this "Rodgers fostering Flynn while Manning peed in Sorgi and Painter's cheerios")

The Colts didn't have "no backup", you keep saying this. It's not like #2 on their depth chart was a punter. I'm pretty sure they've kept 1 or 2 backups every year. They also signed Orlovsky before Collins. Orlovsky started games as recently as 2008 and has been #2 or #3 on the Texans roster since. Though I always thought he looked awful and couldn't believe they threw money at him. It's no surprise to me that they cut Orlovsky and kept Painter on the roster. Orlovsky is terrible.

It's also just weird that people keep bringing this up right now, as if they weren't aware that the Colts have had pretty bad #2s for years now. I don't ever recall people questioning that plan (at least not to this extent) before now.

it's bring brought up now b/c I previously figured that the Colts thought Painter was a reasonable backup/#2 guy. bringing in Collins, though, said volumes about what they thought about Painter. after 3 years, if you don't feel comfortable enough with a guy that he can be a spot/emergency starter, he should be cut.

so if the Colts really weren't comfortable with that - which apparently they weren't - they ostensibly had no real backup plan.

also, re: the Packers, they took 2 QB's in the draft, one was Flynn in the 7th, one was a 2nd rounder. even though Rodgers isn't at Mannings level, he is elite and youngish but the Packers were sill putting backup plans in place. it was a surprise for Flynn to win the #2 job, but not a surprise they had a decent guy in place

Which backups would you like to have seen on the Colts' roster this whole time?

I don't know, I'm not qualified to be a FO guy, Polian certainly is, I just think he should have had some kind of safety net in place. I think we would both agree there are plenty of guys out there better than Painter who don't cost a whole lot more

Colts are probably without Brackett and Sims this week, Peyton Hillis should have himself a very nice day.

Peyton is the GOAT, the dropoff from him to "the replacement" makes it worthless to take seriously.

With Peyton=Contenders
Without Petyon=Luck plz

If you think the Colts are built as well as the Pats, you're nuts (The Colts don't have BB ). If Peyton can't play, they aren't going to be able to salvage the season. Set that mother****er on fire imo.

2 games down, 14 more to go. Gogogo Colts

A good Colts fan is rooting for a 1-15 season (0-16 is too much imo, we aren't the Lions). The Colts have zero chance to win the SB (duh), and 1-15 is hugely better than 5-11.

**** any so called "Fans" that start rooting for 1-15 when the Colts are 0-1.

That is ridiculous.