Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Maybe Peyton will play safety,olb,mlb, rt, WR and provide decent depth for us as well. Why not? He's Peyton fucking Manning.
Problem with that line of thinking is that he took a 2-14 team with more holes than we have to a 14-0 record, a 10-6 record, and a Super Bowl bid. If we have the money to get Manning, and he's healthy, we get him. Forget about the rest of the holes. You know what teams have holes? The Packers, Patriots, 49ers, and Saints. If we can somehow move money around and get him and Reggie Wayne, then I think that's what we need to do. I still think we would need to get a receiver to go along with Manning. Holmes will not cut it. Plax will not cut it. These receivers suck. If Wayne comes in a package with Manning, then I think we get to the Super Bowl.
And we need at least one, probably 2 safeties and LBs. I don't know where all this money is coming from.
July 30, 2011: Peyton Manning signs a 5 year, $90 million contract. During the offseason and season following, he has 3 neck surgeries. Less than a year later, the Colts are gutting the entire team and planning to release him. Yes, if the Jets can get a 'healthy' Manning, they should do it. But if his former team, the one that prospered so much from his ability, has thrown in the towel and decided to cut bait less than a year after re-signing him... why in the blue fuck does anyone think he's 'healthy'????? This is beyond retarded. Use some logic.
I think Peyton would take a lot less money to play for a championship contender (his endorsement deals make him one of the few players who can afford to do so.) Get it done Tanny!
They will officially announce it tomorrow during Super Bowl media day and try to upstage the Super Bowl.
So says John Clayton. His way of reminding people at the start of Superbowl Week that, yes, he still does report on football for ESPN and is available for interviews on Radio Row.
Didn't he take less money in his most recent contract when they wanted to make him the highest paid player in the game? http://www.nesn.com/2011/07/report-...s-to-five-year-90-million-contract-with-.html
That's why you don't do contracts and Tannenbaum does. Did you know where the money was coming from when they got Favre, Faneca, Woody, Pace, Richardson and Law all at the same time?
That's PR stuff b/c Brady had done that multiple times. It's about the guaranteed money not the total contract dollars.
Not for me. Too much uncertainty, too costly and way too many other holes to fill on both sides of the ball. If we didn't need a starting RT, depth @ G/C, Starting OLB, ILB and Safety, a blocking TE (one who doesn't draw a penalty flag every other down) and Punter, then I would be OK with it. Peyton Manning, even if healthy, will not save this team by himself.
I freaking hate this! Peyton Manning is going to try to upstage the Super Bowl by announcing his retirement in the week before, however we all know that Tom Brady always beats Peyton Manning when it counts, which probably means that Brady is going to have the game of his life and pass for like 600 yards as New England beats the Giants on Sunday! Sometime we need to setup a run-on sentence contest on TGG. I'm getting so good at it.
Not to spoil the fun, but I feel like I need to interject with this every few hundred posts or so, just in the spirit of keeping it real: Peyton Manning has undergone at least three neck surgeries, and had to fly to Europe for an experimental stem cell procedure that we don't even allow in the United States. His continued playing career has to be, at best, a 50-50 proposition. IF this team were one player away, and IF Peyton's health were guaranteed, and IF his salary wouldn't hinder the team's ability to sign and keep quality younger players; MAYBE it'd be worth the gamble of taking an aging quarterback who spent his career playing indoors 50% of the time and in a division with three southern cities and putting him in an outdoor stadium with three outdoor, cold weather venues.
