I'm just saying, don't you think it's kind of weird saying age is such a factor for Manning at 33, but not for Brady at 31, soon to be 32, coming back from a serious injury?
There are two answers to that. The first is that no, a lot of the fans here haven't figured that out. The second is that this is the forum where a "Trade Brady" thread went on for hundreds of pages and months on end, because a lot of people here would rather have had Cassel than a 31 year old Brady coming off of an injury.
Don't expect reason, logic, or common sense to rule here (or anywhere else on the internet, for that matter)
Re: the Colts, I more or less agree with you. When people talk about age, I think they're referring to the Colts' tactic of paying a select group of guys a lot of money, and filling in the rest with rookie contracts. As part of that method for building a team, the Colts will always be pretty young, especially compared to a team like the Pats, which fills in more holes with veterans (cheaply, but at above-rookie prices), and as a result spends less on the megadeals to keep star players. So when people talk about the Colts getting older, I think they're focusing pretty squarely on a couple of guys- Manning, Freeney, Sanders, Wayne, and some others. Which admittedly isn't exactly fair.
Honestly, I'm not even sure that these perspectives on their differing philosophies are as cut-and-dry as we all think they are. This offseason will go a long way towards showing if the Patriots still follow the philosophy that's attributed to them, with all of the contracts that are coming up on both sides of the line. I wouldn't be surprised if some key guys walk because we can't afford them, and I wouldn't be surprised if we pay up to keep them and have to start relying on the draft more to fill in the middle and bottom tiers of talent.
