You make a big post saying that defense is a big factor in a team winning the Super bowl then agree with Irsay when he bitches Manning didn't bring him more rings. Sense you make none.Because if you actually read/hear what people say and process the information, instead of just taking what sports media tries to shove down your throat as a story, you realize Irsay wasn't throwing Manning under the bus. Was it poor taste in timing to make the comments he made? Sure, probably. But they were entirely true. When you're looking at the ultimate goal of an NFL team, Super Bowl Championships, having an elite all-world QB and throwing a lot of money at the offense has not been the best recipe for success.
Since 2000 when the Rams won their SB, you've had the 10 of the 13 Super Bowl champions have done so without an elite QB and at worst a solid, often elite, defense. 2x Ravens, 2x Steelers, 2x Giants, 1x Bucs, and 3x Patriots. And yes, when the Patriots won their 3 SBs Tom Brady was in no way a top of the line QB, in fact since he became a stat machine their SB record is 0-2. The other 3 champions were teams that had the All-World QB talent (Rodgers, Brees, Manning) but defenses that in the years surrounding the championship were awful, but in the championship year managed to be "opportunistic".
So TL;DR: Bad timing? Sure. Wrong? Not at all.
Regardless I don't really care for Manning but Irsay's comments were tasteless. Regardless of if you think Manning helped or hurt the Colts more, he definitely made them into a far more popular team while he was there and made his family a fuck load of money.