Via Twitter: Shanahan has evaluated 10 to 15 college QBs this season

[2cents]

It would be really boring watching the Redskins defense play with a lead. Watching Orakpo and Kerrigan going full speed at the QB every down would be awful.

Don't laugh, poeple here these days would probably complain about how boring the Skins were in 91 because most games were blow outs. Too many people complain to complain.

[daveakl]

Manning would eat up a huge amount of cap space that we could use to grab pretty much all the top FAs we want. Basically, if we go after Manning, it's either him, or the rest of FA, but we can't have both. I can't see Shanahan doing that.

And even if he could still get solid FAs and Manning, he probably avoids that after the McNabb debacle. Once bitten twice shy, and rightfully so.

And even still, this is assuming Manning is perfectly healthy, AND is easily capable of picking up a new system after being in the same one for 10+ years.

Basically, there's a lot of hurdles for it to work. And all the while, the same argument could be made to the Colts for keeping Manning. Re-sign him, trade down and grab a developmental guy. I'd say there's a 2% Manning is our QB next year.

1. Totally untrue. The Redskins are able to carry around 11 million from this years cap into next year under the new CBA. They should have around 20 million. Plenty to spend on Manning, and a couple other players.

2. Totally different situation. You are signing one as a FA and not giving up draft picks. Same idea as getting a Hasselbeck or other vet to lead the team for 2-3 years.

3. Why would it be harder for Manning to learn a "new" system then it would be for a rookie QB? I would argue that Kyle/Mike would alter their system a bit to help Manning. Look at how the running game changed as the season went on and the coaching staff realized Rex was to slow to run a traditional hand-off play and we went to the toss.

4. Something else to consider. Peyton Manning for Senate campaign.

[MartinC]

Manning would eat up a huge amount of cap space that we could use to grab pretty much all the top FAs we want. Basically, if we go after Manning, it's either him, or the rest of FA, but we can't have both. I can't see Shanahan doing that.

And even if he could still get solid FAs and Manning, he probably avoids that after the McNabb debacle. Once bitten twice shy, and rightfully so.

And even still, this is assuming Manning is perfectly healthy, AND is easily capable of picking up a new system after being in the same one for 10+ years.

Basically, there's a lot of hurdles for it to work. And all the while, the same argument could be made to the Colts for keeping Manning. Re-sign him, trade down and grab a developmental guy. I'd say there's a 2% Manning is our QB next year.

All the unused cap space we had this year - about $12m - gets carried over to next year under the new CBA. We will not be short of cap space next year and that in itself will not be a hurdle to signing Peyton Manning and taking a guy like Tannehill somewhere in the low teens if we could trade back.

Now I'm one who thinks that the Colts will not release (or trade) Peyton and of course Peyton has to be healthy and want to continue to play. If he is healthy though and the Colts do release him before that $28M option is due then I think he could be a great pick up along with a guy like Tannehill who could sit behind him for 2 or 3 years like Rodgers did behind Farve.

[daveakl]

Now I'm one who thinks that the Colts will not release (or trade) Peyton and of course Peyton has to be healthy and want to continue to play. If he is healthy though and the Colts do release him before that $28M option is due then I think he could be a great pick up along with a guy like Tannehill who could sit behind him for 2 or 3 years like Rodgers did behind Farve.

That's the key part.

I'll say this. If Indy is drafting #2 he is staying put as long as he is healthy, Indy is trading down a bit, and life goes on.

If Indy is drafting #1 things get veeeeery interesting.

Also, if Indy is drafting #2 it puts 3 QB situations in play for us.

1. Trade up for Luck

2. Trade up to #2 for RGIII

3. Trade for Bradford (our 1st this year and 1st + 3rd next year). The last one is prob the least likely.

[wysknz1]

IF, we got Manning as Qb he'd probably outcoach Kyle on the field.

[DogofWar1]

1. Totally untrue. The Redskins are able to carry around 11 million from this years cap into next year under the new CBA. They should have around 20 million. Plenty to spend on Manning, and a couple other players.

2. Totally different situation. You are signing one as a FA and not giving up draft picks. Same idea as getting a Hasselbeck or other vet to lead the team for 2-3 years.

3. Why would it be harder for Manning to learn a "new" system then it would be for a rookie QB? I would argue that Kyle/Mike would alter their system a bit to help Manning. Look at how the running game changed as the season went on and the coaching staff realized Rex was to slow to run a traditional hand-off play and we went to the toss.

4. Something else to consider. Peyton Manning for Senate campaign.

Problem is, Manning will still cost an absurd amount, and instead of having enough money to get 6 or 7 top FAs we might have enough for 2 or 3. I'd much rather grab a half dozen B+ or A- guys around 27 years of age coming off their 1st contract than 2-3 of them and Manning. This free agency year, if executed well, could set us up with solid guys around the team for 5-8 years. Taking Manning drastically reduces the number of holes we could fill.

I agree the McNabb situation is different, but at the end of the day we're still bringing in an old guy who, thanks to his injury, we have no idea of his level of play. I would almost say that McNabb was more of a sure thing than Manning (comparing McNabb at the end of the 2009 season and Manning right now), since McNabb was healthy. If Manning has any long term effects from surgery (head can't move as quickly, slowing his progressions or something, or he has a weakened neck and can't suffer sacks as well), he could be even more of a gamble.

As for the system thing, I'd rather have a rookie playing and learning the system than Manning. And if changes have to happen to accommodate a QB, I'd rather they be focused on helping our future franchise guy than helping Manning, only for us to have to switch the offense up again once the franchise guy finally takes over.

[daveakl]

Problem is, Manning will still cost an absurd amount, and instead of having enough money to get 6 or 7 top FAs we might have enough for 2 or 3. I'd much rather grab a half dozen B+ or A- guys around 27 years of age coming off their 1st contract than 2-3 of them and Manning. This free agency year, if executed well, could set us up with solid guys around the team for 5-8 years. Taking Manning drastically reduces the number of holes we could fill.

I agree the McNabb situation is different, but at the end of the day we're still bringing in an old guy who, thanks to his injury, we have no idea of his level of play. I would almost say that McNabb was more of a sure thing than Manning (comparing McNabb at the end of the 2009 season and Manning right now), since McNabb was healthy. If Manning has any long term effects from surgery (head can't move as quickly, slowing his progressions or something, or he has a weakened neck and can't suffer sacks as well), he could be even more of a gamble.

As for the system thing, I'd rather have a rookie playing and learning the system than Manning. And if changes have to happen to accommodate a QB, I'd rather they be focused on helping our future franchise guy than helping Manning, only for us to have to switch the offense up again once the franchise guy finally takes over.

right, because signing 6-7 of the top FA works out so well for teams

McNabb was signed to do the same thing that Manning would do. Serve a bridge to the next QB. Manning/Rex/insert name here, we still need someone to get us to 2014 unless we are getting Luck or RGIII. Tannehill is a great prospect as a QB but not ready to start next year at all.

[Hitman21ST]

right, because signing 6-7 of the top FA works out so well for teams

McNabb was signed to do the same thing that Manning would do. Serve a bridge to the next QB. Manning/Rex/insert name here, we still need someone to get us to 2014 unless we are getting Luck or RGIII. Tannehill is a great prospect as a QB but not ready to start next year at all.

Because bringing in McNabb and high priced free agents has worked out so well for us

As much as I like Manning, he would command WAY too much money, and Rex can be that "bridge" to the new QB. If it's not Luck or RG3, I expect Rex to start around six games or so then the rookie to step in. Luck or RG3, they start immediately and Rex is the backup.

[Lavarleap56]

FWIW, talked to someone last night who has ties to the organization. He said that Skins most likely not going QB in round 1 now. Said Skins wanted Barkley, but he's staying in school.

Of course that could be wrong or could change, but I don't think he was BSing me.

:munchout: really? Hahaha only way that happens is if Griff stays and they cant trade down.

[TradeTheBeal!]

The kid from Texas A&M Tannehill looked very good today. Sure hope we've been taking a look at him.

[daveakl]

Because bringing in McNabb and high priced free agents has worked out so well for us

As much as I like Manning, he would command WAY too much money, and Rex can be that "bridge" to the new QB. If it's not Luck or RG3, I expect Rex to start around six games or so then the rookie to step in. Luck or RG3, they start immediately and Rex is the backup.

Since McNabb was not a FA (same with Mark I will take a pass on that one. Manning is a different animal then other top FAs' that we have signed and missed on (not a head case at all).

Personally, I agree that Rex can be that bridge, but I also think (and have seen this opinion from a massive amount of scouts) that Tannehill should not be seeing the field next year. That being said, IF our O-Line, RB's and WR's looks like they have the past 4 games (and improve with a off season together) I think we are much closer then one would have thought going into the season. If that is the case next year around week 8-9 then I can see Tannehill playing out the season. I can live with Rex for another year but I also think that IF you can get Manning without giving up picks AND get the QB of the future, you must explore that option.

Edit to add:

Think Montana going to the Chiefs after missing a year with an elbow injury.

[Lavarleap56]

Skins have a few trade up options available depending on how the colts and rams finish the year. I would not discount the relationship between Demoff nd Allen as it makes the rams a attractive trade partner at 1 & 2..

[Est.1974]

I get the impression we aren't trading up for Luck.

[Lavarleap56]

Out of Barkley Luck and Griff we were only targeting Barkley? C'mon.

Haha no. Barkley was sitting at 3 behind Rg3 & Luck.

[Skinsinparadise]

Just watched Tannehill, its not the first game I've seen him play, to my eyes I can see why some draft geeks think he has potential but is raw. Hard for me to see him making an instant impact in the NFL. I struggle to define what seems missing about Tannehill but he doesn't seem to make many big plays, some bad decisions too and wonder if he will be interception prone early in his career.

[daveakl]

Skins have a few trade up options available depending on how the colts and rams finish the year. I would not discount the relationship between Demoff nd Allen as it makes the rams a attractive trade partner at 1 & 2..

Colts Vet's want Manning back also and know that is a more of a slam dunk if they have the #2 pick instead of #1. Not saying that will be the motivating factor, but on some level it helps.

[Lavarleap56]

Colts Vet's want Manning back also and know that is a more of a slam dunk if they have the #2 pick instead of #1. Not saying that will be the motivating factor, but on some level it helps.

Truthfully the colts dont want the number 1 pick because they would rather not deal with the luck factor. The colts sit at ine they will take luck and we then likley trade with St.Louis. The number 2 pick ends up being indy then it gives us options at 1 and 2. Griffin should mke his announcement by Tuesday.

[Est.1974]

I would not discount the relationship between Demoff nd Allen as it makes the rams a attractive trade partner at 1 & 2..

Me neither. We had that union investigation involving the Rams trading linebacker Hall Davis to the Redskins for fullback Dennis Morris for conditional undisclosed draft picks. Ended with both players being cut and I think both teams saved a few $$$ at the same time. All got swept aside, but its fair to say Allen & Demoff have some history.

[Lavarleap56]

Me neither. We had that union investigation involving the Rams trading linebacker Hall Davis to the Redskins for fullback Dennis Morris for conditional undisclosed draft picks. Ended with both players being cut and I think both teams saved a few $$$ at the same time. All got swept aside' date=' but its fair to say Allen & Demoff have some history.[/quote']

Yeah the scuttlebutt about rams/skins talking Bradford is not really about Bradford.

[Hitman21ST]

If we trade w the Rams, is it for the pick or Bradford? Just curious.

It would be for the pick. More than likely the Rams are going to build around Bradford instead of start all over with a new QB. They'll also get more in return for the pick than for Bradford.

[daveakl]

Truthfully the colts dont want the number 1 pick because they would rather not deal with the luck factor. The colts sit at ine they will take luck and we then likley trade with St.Louis. The number 2 pick ends up being indy then it gives us options at 1 and 2. Griffin should mke his announcement by Tuesday.

Lol, I pmed you that same thing a day or two ago. Great minds or great sources think alike. Lol

[2cents]

Truthfully the colts dont want the number 1 pick because they would rather not deal with the luck factor. The colts sit at ine they will take luck and we then likley trade with St.Louis. The number 2 pick ends up being indy then it gives us options at 1 and 2. Griffin should mke his announcement by Tuesday.

If we trade w the Rams, is it for the pick or Bradford? Just curious.

[Hitman21ST]

If we trade w the Rams, is it for the pick or Bradford? Just curious.

It would be for the pick. More than likely the Rams are going to build around Bradford instead of start all over with a new QB. They'll also get more in return for the pick than for Bradford.

[MartinC]

If we trade w the Rams, is it for the pick or Bradford? Just curious.

It's for the pick - Bradfords contract and the cap hit that would create for the Rams means a trade is practically impossible even if they wanted to move him, which I doubt they do.

[Est.1974]

Yeah the scuttlebutt about rams/skins talking Bradford is not really about Bradford.

No way I see any trade up costing anything like what is being talked about. We have the Colts & Rams wanting out of the heat. I'd say you end up with a few GM's on a teleconf' agreeing who's trading with who long before the draft. Bottom line, they want to trade down, no point ****ting in your own nest too much. I smell collusion in the air.