Came across a very well written article by Matt Snyder from NFL Fanhouse which looked at the performance of the Colts during the Manning era. As the title of the article suggests, Synder states that in order for the Colts, and Manning, to be immortalized as a truly great team and quarterback, they need to win at least one more title. I tend to agree with him.

Snyder begins by highlighting the Colt's outstanding regular season record over the past 6/7 years and how it compares to other great teams:

That's right, after beginning this season 5-0, the Manning-era Colts are now 80-21 since the beginning of 2003. The '70s Steelers went 87-27-1 from 1972-1979. From 1981-1998, the 49ers were always pretty stout, but they never put together a six-plus season run where they played close to .800 ball like the current Colts (they came closest from 1987-1992 when they went 75-20). The '90s Cowboys went 70-20 in their best stretch. From 2001-2007, the Patriots went 86-26. Shula's '70s Dolphins, at 67-16-1, check in as the best competition.

However regular season records are not remembered, rings are. Years from now, rightly or wrongly, people will look back on this team and judge it based on how many titles it won. As Matt says:

Should the Manning-era Colts not win another Super Bowl here in the next few years, they will be just another team who won a Super Bowl, instead of being considered among the immortal groups in the NFL

It is simply how teams are judged. Look at New England for example: the Patriots are seen by the majority of people (or at least the majority of the media) as the best team of the decade because they have won the most Super Bowl titles. I would argue that the Steelers are the best team of the decade (mostly because they didn't cheat to win their rings) but I agree with the use of Super Bowl titles as a measure of a teams success. Super Bowls are the sole reason player's play the game. I therefore completely agree with Snyder, that in order for the this team to be viewed as a truly great team, they need at least one more title.

Unfortunately players, like teams, are often judge based on the number of rings they have. The most common pro-Brady argument in the Manning-Brady debate is that Tom has won more titles then Peyton and is therefore a better quarterback. Obviously anyone with half a brain knows that Super Bowls are won by teams, not quarterbacks alone and therefore should only be used to judge teams. However this is not the case. As Matt states Peyton will be also be judged based on the number of titles he wins (or doesn't win):

It all starts with Manning, who is easily one of the top-10 quarterbacks of all-time. In fact, you could make an argument for the best ever (and his stats will show it before he retires). The only argument you can make against him? The one I'm talking about right now: "he's only won one Super Bowl!" 

To a certain extent I agree with him. As a Colts fan (who pride's himself on being as unbias as possible, in other words not a complete homer) I believe Peyton Manning will retire as the G.O.A.T (Greatest Of All Time), regardless of how many titles he wins. He can make all the throws, reads defenses better than anyone, works harder then anyone, makes those around him better, leads (and at times carries) his team, and is truly humble by nature. He is simply the best. But as Snyder says, in order for Manning to be viewed by everyone, as undeniably the best QB of all time, he needs to win at least one more title. If not there will always be that argument: "He only won one Super Bowl". Matt Snyder sums it up best:

In order for the Manning-era Colts (or even Polian-era Colts, if you prefer) to be truly appreciated, they need to bring home the hardware one more time. If they are really serious about being a transcendent team, they'll do it at least twice -- just for good measure.

After all, that is what a truly immortal team would do.

He's right.