Were the Colts Better Off with Manning?

On Sunday, the Denver Broncos and the Indianapolis Colts will square up for what will be an exciting and very telling game. Both teams have had great seasons so far- The Broncos are currently 6-0 and the Colts are 4-2. What will be the most exciting is the matchup between former Colt Peyton Manning and the new face of the Colt’s franchise, Andrew Luck.

As anyone with basic football knowledge knows, Peyton Manning was released from the Colts after the 2011 season, in which Manning didn’t play a single game due to neck injuries. Without Manning playing, the Colts had one of their worst seasons ever, finishing with a 2-14 record. At this point, the Colts had to make the difficult decision to either keep a 37 year old Manning who was coming off major surgery, or sign rookie and Heisman winner Andrew Luck who could lead the Colts to victory throughout his entire career. The Colts chose the latter, and Peyton Manning was signed to Denver to start as QB for the Broncos.

In the 2012-2013 season, Luc k brought the Colts to 11-5, which was a 9 game turnaround from the previous season. In his first season with the Broncos, Manning led the team to a 13-3 record. Andrew Luck has done a more than decent job leading the Colts, but Peyton has done incredibly well in his short time with the Broncos, who are currently heavily favored for the Super bowl. This begs the question: Are the Colts better off with Andrew Luck, or should they have kept Manning?

Clearly the biggest benefit of signing Luck is that he can be the new face of the Colts franchise. Luck is only 24, which is 13 years younger than Manning. Even if Luck isn’t doing perfectly with the Colts right now (though he’s doing a pretty good job), he has an entire career to grow and mature in Indianapolis. Manning, on the other hand, is 37, clearly nearing the end of his career. In 2016, at the age of 40, Manning’s contract will end and it will be unclear if he will play in the NFL any longer. Even he’s a better player right now, he wouldn’t have been the face of the franchise much longer.

One of the other bigger benefits of signing Luck was that Colts have been able to build a strong supporting team for him in these past few years. Because Luck’s contract was significantly less money than Manning’s, The Colts have been able to sign a lot of other major contributing players like LaRon Landry and Gosder Cherilus. With Manning, the Colts would not have really been able to focus on strengthening their overall team in the way that they have.

Michael Smith and Jemele Hill of ESPN 2’s show “Numbers Never Lie” wanted to look at actual statistics and numbers to determine who the Colts would be better with. And according to numberfire.com, if Peyton Manning had been a Colt in the 2012-2013 season, they would have won 2.3 more games. And had he been a Colt this season, they would have won 4 more games. And next year, they still would win 1 more game with Manning than with Luck. In fact, it wouldn’t be until 2016 that Manning would finally win fewer games than Luck with the Colts.

So when you just look at the number of wins, it’s clear that Manning would probably have been better for the Colts. But there’s more to this than just wins for the next couple years. Once again, the Colts currently have the opportunity to create a new, if not better, Peyton Manning. This is Luck’s second year in the league and he’s already putting up great numbers. Let’s not forget that it took Peyton Manning 6 years with the Colts to even win a playoff game. So if you look at both players’ first couple seasons, Luck is actually doing better than Manning.

Peyton Manning is one of the best and smartest football players to ever grace the field. He will surely go into the Hall of Fame, and will be remembered for years after. But In my mind, the Colts made the right decision to go with Andrew Luck. Only time will tell to determine if the decision was refight.

The Colts/Broncos game will be in Indianapolis at 8:30 ET.