Homer: Please just say no to Peyton Manning

[Tsoe]

With our cap space and possiblility of not getting the top 2 QB picks, (both of which have proved less than Manning) I would welcome Manning with an incentive laden contract. (which he has reportedly been open to)

Everyone likes to bring up McNabb when it comes to reasons why not to pick up Manning in FA. Ill bring up two names of how going the draft route, P.Ramsey and J.Candle.

The Draft is not a sure thing, and it seems that this team will never lose enough games to get their pick of litter so it takes exceptional scouting and ultimately luck to score a QB in the draft.

My concern with Manning is that he no longer has some pushover HC(including Dungy) and an OC who will be willing to turn over the Keys. If he comes here, he has to commit to the run game and work WITH Kyle to integrate his abilities with this offensive system. If he can do that and he's healthy, I really don't see drafting a QB now being our best option. I would be more willing to put money on a healthy and motivated Manning coming in and leading the skins to a SB sooner than some rookie.

[MartinC]

Martin - what do you think of the recent reports coming out about Peyton?

I think if the reports are true then its a red flag and we should stay away - signing him has always been conditional on his health.

However I also think you have to consider the timing and likely source of the reports. The Colts are about to cut the guy who lifted that franchise out of the the basement and has been its face for over a decade. They need to present this to their fan base in a way which minimzes the negative reaction they are going to get even if they can present Luck as his successor.

Last week there was Isray twittering away about how they wanted to keep Peyton but he would need to restructure - implication being if Peyton gets cut its his fault as he would not redo his deal. Then this week we get these reports from unnamed sources about his additional surgery and long term prognosis - implication being if we cut him its because he is just not healthy.

Bottom line there is a lot of spin going on and I take everything right now with a big pinch of salt.

[Bang]

There's no way to spin a secret neck surgery.

Or bone spurs.

There's so many red flags up right now, not even Vinny could ignore them if he was still here.

Let someone else take the chance on whether or not they're actually red herrings.

~BAng

[polywog999]

You don't have the authority or the knowledge to say he won't be picked in the first. He's the third best QB in this draft. If Barkley/Jones/Wilson came out, I'd probably agree with you. But even as a project, he has better skills than most of the other quarterbacks that will be available.

You're fooling yourself if you think he's available that late, but it's entirely possible he falls. But to declare anything with any kind of certainty, such as "he will not be picked in the first - period" is off.

And how can you know that I can't know? I believe I am right and so do you - that's where it ends.

[KDawg]

And how can you know that I can't know? I believe I am right and so do you - that's where it ends.

Because neither of us know. Ending your claim with "period" suggests a definitive answer. You don't have that.

[polywog999]

Because neither of us know. Ending your claim with "period" suggests a definitive answer. You don't have that.

Enough already. We don't agree, let it go. I am allowed to have an opinion - just like you.

[DogofWar1]

Hypothetical question:

Say we miss out on RG. Who would be in favor of Tannehill at #6? If Blackmon is there, is that our chance to get a call for a trade and perhaps have the chance to take him later in the 1st? We run the risk of Seattle taking him at #11.Tannehill's almost assuredly not going to last until pick #39.

Do you take him at #6 as a sure thing or risk losing him to Seattle?

No. That's a panicky move that we'll look back on and regret, like the Campbell trade. Listen, Tannehill is not worth a pick above 20. If we're talking about using a pick higher than that for him, we need to take a step back and realize he's not worth the trouble. The better decision if we miss the top two, is to pickup other talent, and then to either pursue Orton or another vet. Sure, it'd be a journeyman holdover, but then in 2013 you pick up your guy. There's a lot more 1st round prospects next year than this year, so we would be better off just stepping back and going for them.

Or we could trade a 4th rounder in 2013 for Colt McCoy (assuming CLE drafts RGIII), or sign Flynn, but those are more long term moves that would somewhat prohibit us from taking a QB in the 1st next year.

He's not going to go in the first. He's a second rounder all the way. #6? Pass.

I agree with your assessment of this talent level, but as it stands I think he's currently the Ponder of this draft. I could see him dropping out the 1st is if his foot keeps him out of the combine and other pro-assessments, AND someone like Nick Foles or Brandon Weedon lights it up and hops Tannehill on the positional chart. Still, so long as he's the #3 QB in the draft, he'll be looked at very early.

[MartinC]

The better decision if we miss the top two, is to pickup other talent, and then to either pursue Orton or another vet. Sure, it'd be a journeyman holdover, but then in 2013 you pick up your guy.

I agree with you on not reaching for a QB at 6 if RGIII and Luck have gone but you will not have the luxury of picking up a QB like Orton after the draft if we miss out on one of the top 2 QBs. The draft comes after free agency and all the credible options to start at QB will be long gone by the time the draft is over. If we go into the draft without signing a good/decent vet starter we HAVE to get RGIII or we are screwed at the QB position again next year.

[Gregpeck99]

I question any person who would rather have a 36-year-old coming off of three neck surgeries in 19 months over a 22-year-old who could potentially be the face of the franchise for the next decade or so. Maybe being a Redskins fan has conditioned some fans to never think long term, but I'd rather lock the position down for the foreseeable future rather than cross my fingers and hope that Peyton isn't a hit away from retirement.

Polian has testified on Srius that he was at the December 30th workout of Peyton and that what he saw denies the rumours of a "noodle arm."

Assuming a "reasonably " healthy Peyton, it is a no-brainer to grab him ... even if for one good year.

There is no guarantee that any rookie ... RG3 included .... will become the long-term elite QB the Skins have been seeking for 20 years ... certainly not immediately.

There is higher probability that a somewhat healthy Peyton would make the Skins a contender immediately.

And I want to see him go against Eli at least twice during that at least one year!

Besides getting RG3 (or another rookie) and having Peyton for a year or two are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[DogofWar1]

I agree with you on not reaching for a QB at 6 if RGIII and Luck have gone but you will not have the luxury of picking up a QB like Orton after the draft if we miss out on one of the top 2 QBs. The draft comes after free agency and all the credible options to start at QB will be long gone by the time the draft is over. If we go into the draft without signing a good/decent vet starter we HAVE to get RGIII or we are screwed at the QB position again next year.

It's possible that all the journeymen vets get snatched up quick, but generally some of them are floating around after draft time. I'd imagine at least one or two guys similar to Orton/Henne will be floating around after draft day.

And considering that our only QB on the roster right now is Beck, I'd have no problem tossing him and signing another, 2nd tier QB, before the draft, even if we got RGIII. If we get RGIII, we've got our backup on the roster. If not, we re-sign Grossman after the draft (it's not like he's going anywhere), and have an Orton/Henne style guy starting and Grossman as backup. Then we go hard for our guy next year.

Edit: JSteelz tweets are right along the lines of the 2nd of those ideas. Sign Orton, but still make a play for RGIII. Seems like a fairly good idea to "hedge" our bets, as much as ending up with Orton if things go south could be considered hedging.

[MartinC]

Edit: JSteelz tweets are right along the lines of the 2nd of those ideas. Sign Orton, but still make a play for RGIII. Seems like a fairly good idea to "hedge" our bets, as much as ending up with Orton if things go south could be considered hedging.

Yes I think outside of Manning and Flynn both of whom have red flags Orton is probably the best of the rest of the free agent class. I would think we will have competition to sign him though and he might get better offers both in terms of money and opportunity to start.

[Going Commando]

- All FOs have a pro player personnel department that scouts pro players just like they scout college players. It's not an issue of spending time and energy scouting a potential acquisition.

- If the primary, ultimate goal is to win a Superbowl (which I don't see how it can't be), the issue of whether or not to sign Peyton Manning (assuming he is medically cleared) boils down to whether or not you think he can come here and be a successful starting QB that can help us contend for a Superbowl.

- How you make that decision should be based on a clear headed evaluation of his skillset and his organizational fit, plus you obviously talk to him to learn his plans and goals for the duration of the potential contract.

- All other non-football concerns should be ignored in the decision to sign him (potential media reaction, success/failure of past FA acquisitions) because of their irrelevancy to this specific situation.

Personally, I think Manning is a great fit for us and that we can absolutely expect to contend for a Superbowl with him if he's healthy for three or four more seasons. I think we could contend for the division this season signing him and a few other quality free agents and producing a good draft. I think we would improve and by year two and three of his contract, we could be Superbowl favorites from the NFC.

[KCClybun]

...So the four neck surgeries in 18 months with the likely need for a 5th doesn't scare you off?

I think "if he's healthy" is quickly becoming less and less likely. He's not healthy. At all.

[RWJ]

...So the four neck surgeries in 18 months with the likely need for a 5th doesn't scare you off?

I think "if he's healthy" is quickly becoming less and less likely. He's not healthy. At all.

It is becoming quite apparent that Peyton to Washington isn't going to happen. FA QB Orton and 1st round draft pick RG3 (hopefully) or Tannehill is coming more and more into focus for me.

[Going Commando]

...So the four neck surgeries in 18 months with the likely need for a 5th doesn't scare you off?

I think "if he's healthy" is quickly becoming less and less likely. He's not healthy. At all.

If he's not medically cleared then I wouldn't sign him obviously. I doubt Peyton would elect to continue playing if unhealthy.

Speculating from our couches about his health doesn't really interest me because I'm not a doctor and have no idea what his health issues actually are. If I were the GM, I'd trust my medical staff to give me a good evaluation to work with. I doubt anyone (Peyton, Indy, any prospective teams) are going to approach the situation shooting from the hip.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

What's a more optimistic outlook?

That Peyton Manning regains his old form and remains highly productive until he's 40, enabling us to contend for the next 3 years, but most likely closing off our options for the post-Manning era?

That RGIII becomes a top 5 QB in the NFL, enabling us to contend for the next 10-15 years?

Not asking a rhetorical question, just opinons.

Also, if we draft a QB this year, due to the rookie wage scale, I wouldn't sign Peyton to more than a 2 year deal. If you sit a Tannehill or RGIII for the entireity of a 3-4 year contract, then you have to sign them without having played a great deal for you, or you have to put them out there in a contract year.

Not to mention it seems like we'll have to draft Tannehill at #6 or not draft him at all.

[MartinC]

Not to mention it seems like we'll have to draft Tannehill at #6 or not draft him at all.

If we have to take Tannehill at #6 I would pass and take BPA or try to trade down like we did with Gabbert last year. I like Tannehill as a prospect but he is not worth a top 10 pick and I would see taking him that high as a major reach. If we miss out on RGIII I would take my chances on Weedon top of the 2nd rather than reach for Tannehill at #6.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I doubt Weeden is an option if we sign Manning, given his age. Personally, I'd take Weeden as my plan B to RGIII - imo his skillset is top 15 worthy, maybe top 10 worthy. But at 28, he needs to be a productive starter by year 2 AT MINIMUM.

[MartinC]

I doubt Weeden is an option if we sign Manning, given his age. Personally, I'd take Weeden as my plan B to RGIII - imo his skillset is top 15 worthy, maybe top 10 worthy. But at 28, he needs to be a productive starter by year 2 AT MINIMUM.

Oh I agree, I dont see Weedon as a choice if we sign Peyton but if you signed Orton in free agency I could see him being a placeholder for Weedon to start either sometime his rookie year or at the start of his second year latest.