Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing' Set For Sunday

Why Peyton Manning Will Command The Largest Contract In NFL History

INDIANAPOLIS IN - JANUARY 08:  Quarterback Peyton Manning #18 of the Indianapolis Colts passes the ball in the first quarter against the New York Jets during their 2011 AFC wild card playoff game at Lucas Oil Stadium on January 8 2011 in Indianapolis Indiana.  (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)

When it comes to Peyton Manning this offseason, two things are inevitable, assuming a CBA is in fact negotiated:

  1. Manning will demand, and receive, the largest contract in NFL history.
  2. Fans will consequentially complain that Manning is selfish and his contract will prevent the Colts from signing or retaining valuable free agents.

It's no secret that Colts owner Jim Irsay intends on making Manning the highest-paid player in the NFL.  We know that the Colts have no qualms about breaking the bank for their Pro Bowl quarterback.  Manning has destroyed just about every franchise record and is taking aim at some ridiculous league records, setting him up for a hefty payday in the near future.  Some may argue that Indy's postseason shortcomings should factor into the negotiations, but then I would argue in return that wins are not a quarterback stat.

Regardless of what you think of Manning, he will receive the largest contract in NFL history.  Apparently, he will receive it quietly.  And whether it's a cent or a century mark more than the contract Tom Brady received this past season, fans and pundits will inevitably flood the forums and airwaves to claim that Manning is selfish, that he's crippling his team's cap situation, that the Colts cannot field a competitive team when Manning commands over a quarter of their payroll.

What nobody will talk about, though, is the economic reasoning behind Manning's mega-contract.  Believe it or not, these negotiations involve more than Manning, Irsay and Manning's agent Tom Condon.  We have to consider a larger structure, a larger economic force that impacts the player market and affects almost every player in the NFL.  Contracts are not just meaningful on the individual level in this league, they represent milestones, negotiating points for other players. 

We'll take a look at this economic reasoning after the jump.

Star-divide

Let's quickly run through a hypothetical scenario that I feel best demonstrates the economic reasoning behind Manning's contract negotiations.

In this scenario, let's imagine that Manning takes a contract that fans feel allows the team to be more competitive.  Tom Brady's contract averages $18 million per year with $48.5 million guaranteed, so let's say Manning signs a contract that averages $14 million per year with $40 million guaranteed.

Now, let's imagine -- again, just for argument's sake -- that Matt Ryan is due for contract re-negotiation next year.  Ryan's agent is probably going to approach the Atlanta Falcons with a line that goes something like this:

My client will be an elite quarterback in this league during the length of this contract, thus the contract should average $20 million per year.

The Falcons would counter with this:

Peyton Manning only averages $14 million per year.  You're crazy if you think we're going to pay Matt Ryan $6 million more annually than Peyton Manning.

This is because NFL contracts operate as a fluid economy.  One contracts always one-ups the next.  Manning was the highest-paid quarterback with his last contract...until Michael Vick was highest-paid the next year.  Brady's the highest-paid quarterback in the NFL right now...until Manning is.  And Manning will be again...until someone else is.

If Manning accepts anything less than his actual value, which is league tops, he screws up the negotiating system for all other players and agents.  His contract is no longer a gauge, but an erroneous benchmark.  Teams would attempt to low-ball players while agents maintain that their clients deserve to continue climbing Contract Mountain.  It would be an unmitigated disaster, and the NFL Players Association would never allow it to happen.

Manning will command, and receive, the largest contract in NFL history because his contract has to be that benchmark.  For now.  He can't take a "charity contract" because it skews the negotiating system and throws all other players out of alignment.  Taking a lesser contract would probably 'reset' the negotiating table for lack of a better term and roll back prices on NFL players.  The Falcons aren't going to give Ryan exponentially more than Manning.  It's just not going to happen.

Players -- especially players like Manning, one of the faces of the NFL -- are pressured to accept market value for their services because it provides context for all other contract negotiations.  Manning is a driving force in a larger economy.  If he accepts anything less than market value, he lowers everyone else's market value.  And when everyone else's market value is lowered, the NFLPA becomes very upset.

I know fans don't ever want to consider contract negotiations in this light, as it's easier to just say that Manning is greedy and selfish and makes too much money off commercials to take the Colts for upwards of $20 million per year.  But this is how the NFL works.

I don't know exactly how much Manning will command.  What I can tell you is that Brady's contract is the benchmark for Manning's.  Brady's contract runs from 2011-14 (four years) and totals $72 million.  Of that $72 million, $48.5 million is guaranteed.  He also received a $16 million signing bonus, $10 million of which he deferred to 2011 in case of lockout.  The contract is back-loaded, and looks like this when we break it down*:

  • 2010: $7.5 million salary + $16 million signing bonus + $3 million roster bonus = $26.5 million
  • 2011: $5.75 million salary + $4 million roster bonus + $250k offseason workout = $36.5 million (2010 + 2011)
  • 2012: $5.75 million salary + $6 million roster bonus + $250k offseason workout = $48.5 million
  • 2013: $9.75 million salary + $5 million roster bonus + $250k offseason workout = $63.6 million
  • 2014: $9.75 million salary + $5 million roster bonus + $250k offseason workout = $78.5 million

*a few figures were incomplete or exempt, hence some addition errors.  We do know base salaries and roster bonuses for each of the five years involved, though, including the re-structured 2010 year.

Key to Brady's contract are roster bonuses and the fact that in 2013, heavy percentages of his compensation begin to become guaranteed.  This would, along with higher base salaries, present the contract as back-loaded, also making it seem prime for re-negotiation and/or bonus shuffling when the later years come into play.

Brady averages about $18 million per year total on the four-year extension, which should be a ballpark that Condon will work with.  Manning probably won't ask for less than $20 million a year.  He could ask for up to $25 million per year. 

We'll have to remember, as this contract comes together and is ultimately announced, that monster contracts aren't always what they appear.  Take Donovan McNabb's extension with the Washington Redskins, for example.  On paper, the extension is worth up to $88.5 million over five years.  However, in the fine print it becomes clear that it takes a $10 million option bonus to trigger McNabb's base salary from 2011 forward, so he could only be owed $3.75 million if cut this offseason.  McNabb is the best current case study in contract literature.

What we can probably expect to see with Manning is a contract with a hefty signing bonus (don't be surprised to see something in the $50 million range) and some astronomical back-end base salaries accompanied with roster bonuses.  The question, then, becomes contract length.  Brady's contract runs through 2014 on a four-year extension, so how long will the Colts extend Manning?  Five years sounds about right to me, six might be pressing but still plausible.  I'd look for Manning to be extended into 2015, possibly 2016.  With a $50 million signing bonus (let's say) and averaging $25 million per year on the higher end of the estimate, let's call his contract a five-year, $175 125 million extension.

[EDIT:] MarkColtsFanatic pointed out my math error here, in including Manning's signing bonus over and above his salary and not doing the same for Brady.  My numbers are a bit goofed, but you get the idea: Manning will be looking for $20-25 million per year and you all can speculate as to what the contract length actually is.  As the total value of his seven-year contract signed in 2004 was appraised at $99.2 million or about $14 million per year, I'm guessing we see something close to a total value near $150 million if on that seven year range or perhaps closer to $120 million if five or six years.  Just my guess though.  This isn't informed by anything but speculation, and math really isn't my strong suit.  Econ 101 and Finite Mathematics were not my fondest IU memories.

Will it actually be that high?  I would guess not.  If he averages $20 million per year, even considering the $50 million signing bonus, it comes out to five years, $150 100 million which sounds a little more in line.  Still, I wouldn't be shocked to see a figure between those two numbers.

It's possible that Manning won't see every cent of this deal and it could loaded with any number of stipulations: Pro Bowl incentives, Super Bowl incentives, base salary triggers, voidable back-end years circled for re-negotation.  We won't know until Manning puts pen to paper.

All we know for now is that Manning will break the bank, and the NFL economy demands that he does.  He's not just signing a contract for himself, he's signing a contract for every other quarterback who will ever sign a contract, at least until the salary system collapses and is forced to fall back when players are asking for numbers that a salary cap era just can't support.

Comment 38 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Good stuff.

The Nnamdi Asomugha deal at Oakland would be a good example of screwing the baseline up..

The part of the deal which stipulated he should receive $17m or the average of the top 5 QB’s still makes me chuckle. That’s what you call good representation.

by Ben Savage on Jan 12, 2011 5:34 PM EST reply actions  

Good representation

and a stupid owner.

Nothing's complicated if you understand it.

by ctnyc on Jan 12, 2011 6:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Great.

Add in the CBA factor and I feel like Manning getting a fair deal is even more important in the player vs owners fight.

by Richard Hill on Jan 12, 2011 5:47 PM EST reply actions  

Exactly

I’ve tended to think of Manning’s contract in terms of the CBA. Manning’s contract could raise the dollar amount of the CBA. So, Manning may not end up squeezing other player’s contracts. Instead, his contract has the potential to raise the CBA sufficiently that there will be more money for other contracts.

I’ve also thought that Manning’s relationship with Saturday may play a role. Saturday (who has a key role in the Player’s Union) may be pushing Manning to take the big contract.

by Kayaker on Jan 12, 2011 7:18 PM EST up reply actions  

There is a big difference between charitiy contract and breaking the bank.

I will not complain, if he gets between 17 and 18.1 million a year. But if he gets 21 million a year, he deserves the attacks. Make him the highest paid, but not by a mile. Or don’t make him the highest paid, after all, there is no clear distinction saying he is the best. He is one of the best and the hardest workers, but he just threw a bunch of pick sixes. Obviously, that had many reasons, one being him though. And he will also be 35, and be past his prime.

No economic reason could warrant him getting 19-22 million a year.

by Ty46 on Jan 12, 2011 5:52 PM EST reply actions  

He should get market value. Brady is making a giant salary yet the PATS have been to 4 SB’s this decade and won 3. maybe win another this yr. The fault with the COLTS playoff woes are with Bill Polian. His recent past 1st rnders are mostly misses

by PTN391 on Jan 12, 2011 6:06 PM EST reply actions  

True, and let's not forget

the conservative, take-no-chances, rest-at-every-opportunity philosphy which he holds onto like pit bull.

by Ayrshire on Jan 12, 2011 6:29 PM EST up reply actions  

"He also received a $16 million signing bonus, $10 million of which he deferred to 2011 in case of lockout."

Whew – I was worried that Brady would be on the streets in 2011 if there is a lockout!

;-)

Nice write-up, Collin.

How can you not love a team who does this?
Read great Colts analysis on Coltzilla and follow me on Twitter

by LovinBlue on Jan 12, 2011 6:42 PM EST reply actions  

Great write up Collin

I heard someone on the radio today saying that Manning’s deal will be done before the expiration of the CBA, paving the way for The Deal to be made. It wasn’t clear what not signing Peyton by 3/3 would mean to the larger labor negotiations. “Big deals wouldn’t be made, if negotiations were going poorly.” Are they making “bold predictions” or does one really have something to do with the other?

by caldwellmotivatesME on Jan 12, 2011 6:44 PM EST reply actions  

Can't say for sure

But I would think the CBA would pave the way for what the Colts could do for Manning, not the other way around. I’ve seen folks arguing that Manning’s deal would pave the way for a new CBA though…how do you figure? Not being oppositional, just honestly trying to see the logic there.

The CBA would most likely a set a cap for 2011, and the Colts can’t chart the final numbers without knowing that figure. They probably have a ballpark figure for the 2011 base salary, but I doubt they could finalize much without a cap in place.

Maybe they have a couple contract possibilities plotted out though.

Writer for Stampede Blue.

by Collin McCollough on Jan 12, 2011 7:25 PM EST up reply actions  

One of those thingsI heard

and thought, that doesn’t make any sense. You seem to have a grasp of these things. thought I’d run it by.

by caldwellmotivatesME on Jan 12, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions  

CBA 2nd Theory

The Manning deal paving the way for the CBA theory that I heard:

Part of the argument of the NFLPA is that players will need bigger contracts for an 18-game season where they are more likely to get injured. Manning commanding a bigger salary would demonostrate to the NFLPA that the ceiling is still going up for true all-stars, eliminating some concern against the inability to increase salaries for playing more intense games.

It makes sense, as does the other way around. Manning deal first = eases NFLPA concerns. CBA first = eases Colts ability to stay under the new cap. So it’s a toss-up to me. I want the CBA bad, but I don’t want the Colts to get screwed in the process. I am not sure what side I agree with since if there is no CBA and no playing, it doesn’t overly matter what deal Manning got to me. But I don’t want the Colts crippled if they’re going to get a new CBA anyway. Not sure where I stand, but both theories make sense, once is beneficial to Colts and one is beneficial to negotiations.

by DaHart85 on Jan 13, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Cliff Lee = MLB

Apples and oranges. MLB doesn’t have a salary cap or the same sense of contract scale that the NFL has.

Writer for Stampede Blue.

by Collin McCollough on Jan 12, 2011 7:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Value

Or the overall value of almost any NFL team. The Yankess are the only $1 billion dollar worth franchise in MLB, NFL has several. I’ve never looked at the details, but I’d assume given the number of games is just that MLB’s expenses per season are 5x that of an NFL team. No clue though.

by DaHart85 on Jan 13, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions  

Not quite apples & oranges

My first post was rather glib, but I think there’s more credence to pointing out the exception than you give.

I agree that the salary structures and caps are vastly different between the two leagues, but the arguments you use to support the hypothesis that Manning is obliged to go for the largest contract is not dependent upon those differences. Rather, given the commonality of the labor unions present in the leagues and the lack of a hard cap in the MLB, your argument is potentially more valid for an MLB salary situation where there is no requirement to fit a roster within a given budget. The PA in that scenario would undoubtedly push for higher individual salaries.

With respect to the scale of contracts, the average MLB team carries a much smaller roster resulting in a much higher average salary than in the NFL. If you consider the average NFL payroll of $113M vs an MLB payroll of $89M, then spread the salaries across 53 NFL players vs 24 MLB players, it should be readily apparent. It is a mistake to associate the success of a league, franchise values and player salaries too closely. The first $100M contract in all of sport was awarded to A Rod in baseball, not to an NFL player.

by Drewid on Jan 13, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Rec'd for well-reasoned response

Unfortunately the more you all respond with great points, the more I find myself hamstrung to counter with anything due to the uncertainty hovering around the CBA. The more I read into negotiations, the more I realize I have no idea what the salary structure for the NFL will look like next year in terms of cap, revenue sharing, etc.

Writer for Stampede Blue.

by Collin McCollough on Jan 13, 2011 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

compelling arguments

for being highest paid. I was hoping he would do the “noble” thing and not be greedy, to put the Colts in best position to sign others. I still wish that could be the case, though I understand your reasoning. One thing you did not speculate upon was how other players might respond on the field. Does he become less or more of a target by taking more or less money? (I get that QB’s dont line up against each other, just wondering about other players).

by Bluetime on Jan 12, 2011 9:46 PM EST reply actions  

Every player in the league should want Manning to max his value

It literally benefits every single player by raising the salary bar. If the QB salary bar is at $150 million, say, then the WR salary bar will seek to increase by relatively as much. I don’t have any numbers to prove that such a thing has historically happened, but it seems like a logical trend.

If you ask any player on the Colts, they’ll tell you that Manning has earned it. And we could get into the “does a football player really need/earn $150 million when an EMT only makes $35k” argument…that’s societal (I know not where you were going, but again, when Manning inks his deal I know this sentiment will arise as well.) But in pure football terms and in terms of the revenue that Manning generates, he has earned a max contract.

Writer for Stampede Blue.

by Collin McCollough on Jan 12, 2011 10:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Or think of it this way

The salary cap in part increases every year to accommodate inflation or the increase of player pay (not sure if that’s a correct use of the inflation concept…I was a 3.7 student but let’s just say Econ 101 kept me from sniffing 4.0.) When the salary cap increases, so do the asking prices of players due for negotiation or re-negotiation. Peyton’s contract WOULD AFFECT THE NFL SALARY CAP. It would definitely be increased from the last salary cap figure (2009.) Players should want that, because it means they can ask for more money.

By the way, if anyone disagrees, feel free to present another argument. I’m kinda operation off my own economic theory here and economics is not exactly my strong suit. If you can pick this apart or offer a counter-argument, please do.

Writer for Stampede Blue.

by Collin McCollough on Jan 12, 2011 10:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Not if the salary cap is based on revenue

One of the big reasons why cities like Indianapolis can have NFL powerhouses is because overall player compensation has been limited by the CBA. If that continues with the new CBA, then establishing a high salary bar for star QBs means there will be less money available for everyone else.

I suspect that was a big reason why Peyton decided to wait until after the season to negotiate his new contract. He doesn’t want to wreck the Colts by taking up too much cap room, but also doesn’t want to hurt the union’s negotiating position by taking a below-market deal. I suspect he signs shortly after the new deal is announced.

by ex-Viking fan on Jan 12, 2011 11:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Nice work, but I'm a little confused with some of the figures

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure you’re valuing the contracts quite right. Typically, bonuses are factored into the actual total, I think. So Peyton’s contract in that case would be reported as a 5 year 150 mil deal. Not a 5 year 100 mil deal with 50 in signing bonus. Cap wise, the signing bonus is prorated, I believe, though there are some accounting tricks (Haynesworth comes to mind).

As for your points, while I agree that you have it how it should be, I’m not sure that’s how it is. For example, prior to his new deal, Brady was making approx 8 mil(? Not totally sure, but roughly) Eli was making something like 14-16 mil. Now, no one in their right mind thinks Eli is twice the qb Brady is, but it doesn’t really matter. Hell, Stafford got 40 mil guaranteed. Agents, and really owners too, don’t care about benchmarks. Manning could take less, some might be miffed, but its not that big a deal.

In addition, the primary reason the owners opted out of the labor deal was to drop the percentage of income going to the players (there has been talk of a lump sum too). Either way, the players are likely going to get rolled back on this, they just don’t have the leverage. Maybe if they withstand the lockout for a year, but let’s not go down that road, too depressing. This means caps are coming down. Let’s say hypothetically the cap drops by a modest 5% (this would mean player compensation drops to 52% of league revenue, or 3%, which seems like the best possible result for the NFLPA, given the circumstances) This means that the cap is approximately 120-121 million dollars. Peyton’s contract at 25 million is more than 20% of your cap. In 2011, Dwight Freeney is a 16 mil cap charge. Even if Manning is only a 20 million hit, thats almost one third of your entire salary cap in 2 players. As a Pats fan, by all means, but damn, that’s a lot of money. At 5 years/150 mil you are talking 30 mil in cap hits a year (I honestly mean no offense when I say those numbers are ridiculous, and never going to happen. At the very min, it will be prorated over longer and frontloaded in bonus, ie 8 year 150 mil with 55 guaranteed signing bonus. This will drop the cap hit.) Plus Freeney is 16 million per, so that is 46 million in cap for two players, or 40%. Even supposing you cut Hayden and Sanders, how are you going to resign Reggie? Or anyone?

That said, you guys have underspent by a huge margin this year, so you probably can, but its going to hurt.

Btw, I know you guys have been smashing Polian lately, and that’s your business, but looking at these figures gives me an appreciation for the job he’s done. You guys are in great shape, and your cap figures, while ridiculously top heavy(to be expected, though you guys keep upping the ante with your contract demands on Manning’s behalf), you are getting surprising value at the bottom of your chart. Not amazing maybe, but that is a well managed cap. You guys are the fourth lowest payrolled(lower? NE, Balt, and KC) You have room to make some deals, though 15 mil for Nnmandi may not be your best bet. Give him the offseason before hanging him, he possesses some room to work with and improve.

Not trying to start anything, and I think you did a good job, just an uninformed outsider’s take. My guess, 20 mil a year is likely (including Signing bonus).

Good luck with the negotioations, and remember, don’t let him take his talents to South Beach! NY is annoying enough, we don’t need a Marino clone in MIA.

by No Pity on Jan 12, 2011 10:48 PM EST reply actions   3 recs

5yr/150mill seemed off

I see what you’re saying, but that seemed a bit steep so I was thinking for some reason the signing bonus was separate and not included in the reported number. Although you’re right, I think in Brady’s case, it was. So I’ve heard arguments both ways on whether or not to include that. I’ll just leave it at my edit for now with the understanding that I don’t play nicely with numbers.

Rec’d response though. Good stuff. Thanks for your comment!

Writer for Stampede Blue.

by Collin McCollough on Jan 13, 2011 2:51 AM EST up reply actions  

Good point

Tough to standardize across all reporters. And I made a mistake, BBS pointed out the 18 game schedule. If players can keep the percentage system, the cap could stay roughly similar. Though it is likely rosters will expand, you guys should have the money to make the deal. Sorry about that.

by No Pity on Jan 13, 2011 12:47 PM EST up reply actions  

keeping it real!

Whether Peyton deserves the record contract or not isn’t the issue here……the issue is that the large contract will be the demise of our beloved Colts. No money to spend to upgrade the team. You know, Peyton doesn’t have to ask for Fort Knox…….remember Michael Jordan, the greatest winner of our generation, took less money (knowing he would make millions with his endorsements deals, hint….hint) to ensure that the team had money to spend on TALENT. Successful formula……wouldn’t you agree?

by 33rd Street on Jan 13, 2011 12:03 AM EST reply actions  

who else needs a big deal?

Mathis is due, Reggie Wayne is close, Addai will cheaper to keep than many people think… Are you thinking the Colts will spend a mint in free agency this off season? They might, but that’s not usually Polian’s game. Radio guys have suggested Polian might buy a certified pre-owned LT rather than draft one, but who knows. Peyton’s contract won’t keep the Colts from competing, in my opinion.

by caldwellmotivatesME on Jan 13, 2011 7:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah there’s just one problem: Jim Caldwell is no Phil Jackson…

by CF4L on Jan 14, 2011 10:24 AM EST up reply actions  

," he typed with a gap-toothed grin

knowing, with certainty, that after two short seasons the book was written on Jim Caldwell’s career.

by caldwellmotivatesME on Jan 14, 2011 10:29 AM EST up reply actions  

No NFL coach is the equivalent of Phil Jackson (except maybe Chuck Noll or Vince Lombardi) but coaching matters.

You need a strong personality at the helm of the team to even be considered a dynasty regardless of talent and that personality is definately not Jim Caldwell.

by CF4L on Jan 14, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

coaching IS important

We agree on that. I just think Caldwell has done a decent job, over all. Perfect? No way. I’ll keep saying it too. And illustrating it with facts. A new system, and a different philosophy would fuck up Peyton Manning’s mojo. It’s a system built around his skill set. A more aggressive “louder” HC would be a distraction. Assuming that we need the opposite of what we have is fallacy. We’ve been so close for so long. We need to “tweak” it a little not re-invent the wheel. This is my opinion, anyway.

by caldwellmotivatesME on Jan 14, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Who Cares

If it screws up the system by him not breaking the bank. In fact I believe it would just be dumb to do that anyways. He probably has 5 more years left and I would assume championships are far more important that money right now. Besides these guys make way too much money anyways. I think it would be good for the league for him to not be the highest paid player. Its going to cause other players salary to drop which is something that needs to happen anyways. Yes what they do is a risk to their health and life but so is fighting for our freedom and those men and women don’t make near what these NFL players make. The NFL is going to turn out to be like the MLB and totally ruin a good thing. MLB fans are lucky because steroids is the only thing that saved their game. And us NFL fans will be out of luck because these whiny big ego football players who think they are worth however many millions they are requesting. Should Peyton be the highest paid player in the NFL? No question about it and he has proved that for 13 years but there is no one on this earth that is worth 150 million in my opion.

by Garland on Jan 13, 2011 9:21 AM EST reply actions  

Manning's obligation is to the NFLPA

(or at least one of his obligations.) It would not be good for them for him to not be the highest-paid player. No offense, but you seem to have countered an economic force with “who cares, I think/hope it should be this way.”

And like I said, the social concern over how much NFL players make is another argument entirely.

Writer for Stampede Blue.

by Collin McCollough on Jan 13, 2011 11:47 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Indianapolis Colts, 2006 NFL Champions!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

B1_small
Colts.com Reworks Roster
Nerds2
Andrew Luck Failing to Meet Expectations and Five Other Predictions
1565007530_small
Devil's Take - Colts Misconceptions and Issues

Recent FanPosts

Small
Three Big needs with possible answers
Small
National Football Posts's "Impact Rookies"
Small
Gonzo
Images_small
Colts Trade Chris Gronkowski for CB Cassius Vaughn
Image_small
Biggest Colts Changes
Houston_texans_v_indianapolis_colts_-o3ldozy6pvl_small
Announcement about research project involving StampedeBlue
Indianapolis-colts_small
New defensive scheme: Will it help or hurt the Colts?
B1_small
Two Nuggets from the Official Roster
Harbaugh_1_small
Where does "Mr. Irsay" rank?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Head Writer, Editor-In-Chief

Stampedeblue_small Brad Wells

Mgrex03_avatar_small mgrex03

Contributing Writers

Colts_small emiller17

Photo_small nopuntintended

Dmb33rrr_small Stew Blake