"The Historian's Corner"

The Manning Crisis in Perspective

While attempting to enjoy an early birthday dinner (HistProfDad is known for stretching his birthday celebration into a week or more) at Red Robin, my eye was once again consumed (courtesy of ESPN) to more “news” about the future of Peyton Manning as an Indianapolis Colt. First, let me say that I couldn’t hear any of what they were saying (Red Robin is loud and my t.v. was both small and lacked close captioning). Secondly, I’ve grown tired of media types, both locally and nationally asserting that this drama eclipsed the Super Bowl (really?) and/or that they “know” Peyton is on his way out because (a)He doesn’t want to have a young stud quarterback (either Andrew Luck or RG3) breathing down his neck; (b)Crazy Uncle Jim Irsay won’t pay for both him and said young stud quarterback; (c) Manning and Irsay have so soured their business and personal relationships that Peyton can’t stay in Indy; (d) Manning really hasn’t recovered, and probably won’t and this “feud” has been manufactured so he can be traded and immediately retire after getting one more signing bonus from another team.

And those are just some of the scenarios out there. Let me suggest that they are pointless (if at times fun, at other times tedious) speculation. Let me also suggest that the above cover so broad a range of possibilities that one of them (hence why you almost always see them bundled together) is bound to be right in the end, and hence said writer or commentator will also be “right” when he writes that next column about the aftermath and selectively quotes from his earlier column.

But the thing that has bothered me the most, beyond the lack of resolution, is the use of history to prove or disprove (depending on the writer) one of the above scenarios while advancing one of the writer’s own. Now to be fair, Historians love the old maxim that “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” and there is a good deal of truth in it. But at the same time, any Historian worth their salt (and considering the amount of fries I had at Red Robin tonight, I think it safe to say my salt level is currently high) will also tell you that each historical circumstance, no matter how similar, is also unique. As the late Irving Katz (professor of History at Indiana University) used to say, “If Historians were in the business of trying to predict the future, they’d be political scientists.”

So, no matter how many times you have or will hear in the weeks to come comparisons to the Manning situation to what happened to Joe Montana, Brett Favre, or Wayne Gretzky, don’t buy into it. In the case of both Montana and Favre, both organizations already HAD a young stud quarterback in the making (Steve Young and Aaron Rodgers respectively). The Colts do not. Indeed, the Colts have proven since the advent of Manning that they were unwilling to draft anyone who remotely qualified to do anything except hold a clipboard in the NFL. Personally, I’ve always thought that Montana got the short end of the stick with San Francisco (and yes, I understand the business angle of it all); while also thinking that Favre was probably traded at exactly the right time. The other major difference and one that seems to have been lost on most analysts to date is that while clearly in the twilight of their careers, both Montana and Favre were relatively healthy when the trade trigger was pulled. I don’t think we really know (a) how healthy Peyton is or (b) even if he has healed what his doctors have told him about what happens the next time he gets hit (are we talking about career ending, paralysis, or what exactly). Can his spinal column take a defensive line stomping on it? Is that something he wants to risk, especially now that he is a dad? That is the type of conversation that doesn’t just involve a team, a player, and their representatives, but also a player’s family.

And then there is the Gretzky analogy. Again, the basics are similar: Aging star that made a franchise special is traded away by an owner to free up money/plan for the future or whatever. But as anyone who has watched ESPN’s first round of 30 for 30 knows, the story of the Great One’s trade wasn’t that simple. It also had to do with the financial straits owners found themselves in, as well as some of the personal wishes of the star himself…not that he wanted to be traded so much as recognizing the possibilities of what really bringing professional hockey to Los Angeles could mean. The Colts aren’t really hurting (no matter what they might say, and no matter how much restructuring of Peyton’s deal should/needs to be done) financially. The NFL isn’t expanding to Los Angeles (and sorry Dan S. but playing in the DC metro area isn’t the same thing; nor is “coming home” to Tennessee).

If History is going to be our guide in all this, it will be in the language used IF a trade happens: That it was a business decision. We can also expect stories at the moment and later to focus on how “hurt” the player was even as they understood why it happened, as well as how betrayed the community/fans feel about the decision. But since Historians also like to deal in historical analogy, let me introduce you dear readers to another tool we use: Counterfactuals (or “what if”). Here is my counterfactual to the Manning Crisis: What if Peyton is healthy, but he recognizes that said health is fragile and he has other “things” (his kids) to consider beyond football. What if he and Irsay really do sit down and have a real talk about his future with the Colts, because Peyton really does want to play his whole career here, and Irsay isn’t as crazy as he comes off at times (he does recognize that while this isn’t fantasy football, he doesn’t want/need the PR disaster of a protracted Manning trade, not right after the glory of the Super Bowl). And they put together a plan that brings in a young stud quarterback (Luck if you want to stay with someone who might continue Peyton’s style—and I’ll stress might, because we don’t know how any college player will turn out when they turn pro – and who I think the Colts would have drafted if Bill P. was still calling the shots; or RG3 if you want to go in a completely different direction—which could be very exciting and might fit with a rebuilt program, which is the direction I could see the Colts moving in now), but giving Peyton the opportunity to go out on his terms. But we’d have a clear transition in place, and the Colts would have the benefit of not having to put a rookie through the wringer both on and off the field (both because he’d probably get sacked a lot—rookie quarterbacks usually do, and because he’d get blamed for forcing Peyton out). They might also buy themselves some time to start rebuilding other areas the team needs to address (and which were increasingly obvious over the course of last season—pretty much everything).

That is one scenario, it is also may be the best case one for Colts’ fans. Will it happen? I have no idea. But I think it is just as likely to occur as anything I’ve read or seen trotted out by pundits who twist History in order to create or perpetuate a story. If they really want to do that, they should follow the advice of my old prof and get into politics.

-HistProfDad