Homer: Please just say no to Peyton Manning

[GibbsFactor]

Your preaching to the choir here with the arguments above - I have been saying the same thing myself. If we dont sign a QB in free agency who is a credible NFL starter and we crap out in trying to trade up for RGIII we are screwed at the QB position for another year and looking at another year at .500 or worse.

Best bet is to sign Orton and then go into the Draft hoping to land RGIII. Orton or, gasp, Rex. That's what will happen regardless as even if you had a handshake deal with Fisher right now, there's no guarantee RGIII will be ready week one.

---------- Post added February-14th-2012 at 11:09 AM ----------

No. We maximized last year with a ton of picks. This year, we can use less picks and maximize the impact on the roster. There is NO piece that would have the impact that Griffin would. Then you add other talent through whatever picks you have left this year, and you can maximize the impact of the draft again.

This is dangerous thinking. For 10 years we cried to keep our draft picks and after one draft of doing so we want to go right back to trading them all away. While I understand the need for a QB, let's not toss the baby out with the bath water.

[themurf]

That's just a fear tactic. His neck isn't the issue, linebackers have had this surgery before and played. Once his nerves regenerate than the question becomes how close to '10 Peyton is he. Again, still a lot of question marks but if he's ready to play, I don't think anyone should be too worried about his neck going out or something along those lines.

All I'm saying is it's far more likely that the body of a 36-year-old who hasn't played football in more than a year will break down quicker than a 22-year-old who is in the best condition of his life. Which part of that is even remotely controversial?

[KDawg]

This is dangerous thinking. For 10 years we cried to keep our draft picks and after one draft of doing so we want to go right back to trading them all away. While I understand the need for a QB, let's not toss the baby out with the bath water.

And we're not.

We maximized our drafts the last few years. We can afford a year or two with less picks and higher impact draftees.

[GibbsFactor]

All I'm saying is it's far more likely that the body of a 36-year-old who hasn't played football in more than a year will break down quicker than a 22-year-old who is in the best condition of his life. Which part of that is even remotely controversial?

I'm with you and I was all for dropping the season for draft status in July of last year. I hate that once again we are out of the running for an elite QB. We should have tanked like the horseshoes. Who cares that we are 5-11, all it means is that we still have to figure out rather signing an aging superstar is worth it over trading half our draft and next year's first for a QB we should have had for our regular draft selection.

At least we have these two options. The only downfall is that the FA decision needs to happen right now and he's not quite healthy enough for that decision to be had. And of course, we can't wait until the draft to shore up the position because we might not get one there either.

Just ****ty all around.

---------- Post added February-14th-2012 at 11:51 AM ----------

And we're not.

We maximized our drafts the last few years. We can afford a year or two with less picks and higher impact draftees.

Not if depth continues to be our greatest need. I hate that we will have to give up so much. I'm the first to say a marquee QB is like having multiple studs on the offense. Who's to say how good those GB receivers are, those NE tight ends or those NO players are if you take the QB out of the equation. Who's to say those dominant teams certainly have better talent outside of the QB spot than we do. No one can say that with any certainty. We need the QB.

If we want RGIII, we still have to sign Orton or Rex.

If we pass on Peyton, we are going to try to move up. That much is certain. What if we can't move up and pass on him? Another year of suck. That's what.

[paloosa]

I agree with the OP reasoning butI think that if Manning is healthy and wants to come to DC then we have to sign him. I don't think he is looking for a huge payday like others that have come plus Cerrato isn't running the front office anymore. Allen/Shanahan are working the FA and draft very well so far and trust they will make the right choices. We have to at least take a look at the possibility instead of betting the farm on RGIII like some of the faanatics on here are saying. Getting Manning doesn't guarentee we are going to win the Super Bowl but it makes us better at the QB position. Then put it together with our draft picks still in tact which continues the infusion of youth. We could still draft a QB that could be our franchise QB and cn learn from the best in the business to boot. This isn't a desperation move but a smarter move than the past moves including McNabb. The McNabb move was a move that really didn't hurt the progression of the team because we still ended up with Rex as our starter. He was on believe to be a better option than Grossman or Beck. Grossman was a turnover machine and Beck was incapable of moving the offense last year.

So if we bet the farm for a Heisman Trophy winning QB in RGIII then we halt our progression and it becomes a "Ricky Williams" trade deal. What will happen is that we will be setback 5 years because we sent all of draft picks to whomever to acquire RGIII or even Luck. Those two guys are unproven pros. Everyone is basing things on what happened in college. At least with Manning you have a proven guy that will play for 3 or 4 years without losing anything in the draft and if RGIII is there you can still get him or another QB that could be groomed to take his place in a few years. I guess you could look at the situation in Green Bay when Favre was their and they drafted Aaron Rodgers. I know Favre was there already but it could work out the same way if done right.

[martytheman]

And we're not.

We maximized our drafts the last few years. We can afford a year or two with less picks and higher impact draftees.

How quickly we forget.

We did not "maximize our drafts the last few years"

The skins did that in 2011. ONE year.

2010 must have slipped your mind, so let me refresh it for you:

1st rd. Bongwater

2nd - no pick

3rd- no pick

4th Perry Riley (good addition)

5th - no pick

6th Dennis Morris (gone)

7th Terrance Austin (practice squad all star)

7th Erik Cook (probably will never see the field)

7th Selvish Capers (never see the field)

That's a total of 6 picks, only 2 of which did anything meaningful.

[Hitman21ST]

2010 must have slipped your mind, so let me refresh it for you:

1st rd. Bongwater - Overreaction. One of the better LTs in the NFC.

2nd - no pick

3rd- no pick

4th Perry Riley (good addition) - no argument here

5th - no pick

6th Dennis Morris (gone)

7th Terrance Austin (practice squad all star) - got quality reps

7th Erik Cook (probably will never see the field) - Saw starting time last year

7th Selvish Capers (never see the field)

That's a total of 6 picks, only 2 of which did anything meaningful.

Actually it's 4 of 6, with three seeing significant playing time.

[martytheman]

Originally Posted by martytheman

2010 must have slipped your mind, so let me refresh it for you:

1st rd. Bongwater - Overreaction. One of the better LTs in the NFC.*When he's not suspended for taking rips from his bong, hence the nickname

2nd - no pick

3rd- no pick

4th Perry Riley (good addition) - no argument here

5th - no pick

6th Dennis Morris (gone)

7th Terrance Austin (practice squad all star) - got quality reps 15 rec for 184 yds over 2 years, minimal impact, could not crack starting lineup.

7th Erik Cook (probably will never see the field) - Saw starting time last year started 2 games, played in 6. Push.

7th Selvish Capers (never see the field)

That's a total of 6 picks, only 2 of which did anything meaningful.

Actually it's 4 of 6, with three seeing significant playing time.

I'd say it's 3. And only 2 of them saw SIGNIFICANT time.

And that does not address the original point of the post, which was to dispute the claim that the skins had "maximized" their drafts the last few years

so they could afford to be without the top half of this year's and next year's draft.

[Mahons21]

I'd say it's 3. And only 2 of them saw SIGNIFICANT time.

And that does not address the original point of the post, which was to dispute the claim that the skins had "maximized" their drafts the last few years

so they could afford to be without the top half of this year's and next year's draft.

I got to agree with you here, I don't see how anyone could argue we maximized Shanny's first draft, we maximized our draft last year but not the year prior.

EDIT: and I hope we maximize our draft this year as well, and don't throw all our eggs in one basket.

[Chump Bailey]

I'd say it's 3. And only 2 of them saw SIGNIFICANT time.

And that does not address the original point of the post, which was to dispute the claim that the skins had "maximized" their drafts the last few years

so they could afford to be without the top half of this year's and next year's draft.

This is my line of thinking too. We need more drafts like 2011 not 2010. That's where we need to focus on obviously. RG3 is as attractive a QB prospect there is. We could not afford to trade up for Sanchez and I don't see any way we will be able to make a play for RG. For all of the anti-Peyton 'holding us back' 'more of the same' type of sentiment, one could easily make an argument against RG too, which IMO has a bit more merit. That being it would have an enormous impact on the manta so precious for us to continue to build upon (the right way) - draft picks - in order for us to be in a position to land him.

[Jericho]

I've always maintained the Redskins=free agent big name signing is overplayed and way misleading. Even the OP lists "big name" signings, but only three were signed in the last decade - Archuleta, Randle-El, and Haynesworth. And I'm not sure on what planet Archuleta and Randle-El are "big" names. Archuleta never sniffed a Pro Bowl and Randle-El was a #3 receiver when signed and was not expected to be anything more than a #2 at best (the team also had Lloyd and Moss). Simple fact is few real names ever hit free agency. Most come from second tier positions like guard or safety or outside linebacker and most are not name recognizable unless they're at the tail end of their careers.

Dan Snyder went nuts in his first offseason by going after Deion and Bruce Smith and Jeff George. But after that first season, the Redskins were hardly players for the "name" guys. Occasionally, true All Pro and multiple Pro Bowl guys have hit free agency like Jevon Kearse, Asante Samuel, Nnamdi Asomugha, Drew Brees, Steve Hutchinson, and Edgerrin James. And the Redskins signed none of them. The only time they did sign the "big" name was when they got Haynesworth.

That said, the Redskins certainly signed a large volume of free agents. You can blame that on disasterous trades of draft picks for players that left the team short changed every draft. And outside the first round, the drafts picks were pretty suspect too. So free agency was the only good recourse the Redskins had for acquiring players. But they acquired a number of useful ones. And don't get too hung up on the funny money contracts given out. They can be misleading. But quantity does not equal quality. And the idea the Redskins go after any name simply is not true.

Which is why I can't buy the claim the Skins will go after Manning simply due to name recognition. They are one of the few teams clearly looking for a QB (with Miami, Seattle, and possibly Cleveland) and they have cap space. And I'd agree with the OP one on piece of info, that I hope the Manning does not sign here. If healthy, he's quite good and makes any team a contender. But the Redskins need more than a stop gap. They need a real long term answer. Manning is not that answer

[DogofWar1]

If we bring in Manning we'll be retaining our ability to build via the draft, but our ability to build via blue collar 26-28 year olds will be severely hampered due to his cost against the cap.

RGIII is basically the flip side, we retain our ability to go after FAs, but lose some drafting capability.

I think, if Manning is involved, we NEED to be 100% CERTAIN, with no doubts in anyone's mind that he can, barring some tragic event, lead our team for a minimum of 2 years, and more ideally, 3.

In this scenario, I think you bring in Manning, re-sign Rex as backup, and maybe grab a guy in the later rounds this year as a future backup. Then, in the 2013 draft I look for our future franchise guy. There are a lot more and better prospects in terms of depth next year compared to this year, with four guys off the top of my head being Barkley, Jones, G. Smith, and T. Wilson. All four will almost certainly be legitimate 1st round guys, so if we're missing QB this year, I think you look back at the situation next year.

But that's the problem I have with Manning. There's a lot of moving parts in that scenario and if one of them goes bad the whole plan is ruined. First, Manning has to be healthy enough to play 2-3 years. Next, we need to assume we hit in the draft. After all, if we save the draft picks and miss, while sacrificing 10 mil+ that could have been used on top FAs, we're right back at square one, vs. getting known talent for our team from FA. Finally, we need to be in position to get a top QB in 2013, which we may or may not be.

And I'm going to preemptively say that we shouldn't touch Tannehill with a 10 foot pole, since he's become the board's favorite RGIII alternative. Tannehill was a 2nd round prospect before Barkley and Jones left, and he has done nothing with his game to improve in any appreciable way since they dropped out. His rise is solely and entirely due to him jumping from 5th to 3rd QB, and also the result of teams trying to justify him being a 1st round pick due to the fact that they know he'll need to get taken somewhere in the 1st. If he's there in the 2nd, then fine, he'd be worth it. Problem is he won't be there, so we need to just ignore him.

[Symbol]

This is just my opinion on it. Signing Peyton is a great idea, as long as they don't do like they've done in the past with signings. If they want to pay him and Peyton wants to get paid, then do something to insure that we get the healthy, All Pro Peyton Manning. Put incentives in the contract that he only sees all of the money each year if he plays 16 games or if they want to give him a break and say 15 games that's cool too, gets something like 35 TD's and 4k yards. That's not unPeyton like, in fact it's a little lower than what we're usually use to from him, but these would be numbers that Peyton EXPECTS to reach, I would think.

If he works out then we're all happy, maybe we get a young QB that the staff can groom to replace Peyton in 3-5 years. Then at the end of Peyton's contract, the young QB, which we hope is a homerun comes in, and Peyton signs his 1 day contract with the Colts.

That's just my 2 cents though.

[Chump Bailey]

If we bring in Manning we'll be retaining our ability to build via the draft, but our ability to build via blue collar 26-28 year olds will be severely hampered due to his cost against the cap.

RGIII is basically the flip side, we retain our ability to go after FAs, but lose some drafting capability.

That's basically it and the conundrum as I see it Dog. Attempting to resolve one glaring problem may in turn cause many more.

[KCClybun]

This thread has more excuses than a dead horse has flies...

[Mahons21]

That's basically it and the conundrum as I see it Dog. Attempting to resolve one glaring problem may in turn cause many more.

Why isn't this the case for trading up for RG3 as well? Attempting to solve one problem, by a 1st/1st/2nd and possibly 3rd on one player who may not even succeed, can't in turn cause many more problems?... I mean are you surious?

[C26 Run]

Murf that was a great article and timely written, I also completely agree with you. Everyone that would like to sign Peyton Manning has to know that by signing him, we will abandon all hope of building a long term team. For years Snyder has been torched and burned for all his FA signings, now all of a sudden because it's Peyton things will be different?

If this team was in the playoffs and we lost in the NFC Championship game, I'd say sure let's go get him because at least we'd have a strong foundation. This team is not one player away from doing anything in the playoffs. With Peyton, we may earn 8 wins and that's not making the playoffs. We can't keep repeating history and hoping things will work out differently. I'm a big fan of Peyton, but he's not what this team needs.

:helmet:

[Chump Bailey]

Why isn't this the case for trading up for RG3 as well? Attempting to solve one problem, by a 1st/1st/2nd and possibly 3rd on one player who may not even succeed, can't in turn cause many more problems?... I mean are you surious?

It is. You misread my post it seems.

[KCClybun]

Why isn't this the case for trading up for RG3 as well? Attempting to solve one problem, by a 1st/1st/2nd and possibly 3rd on one player who may not even succeed, can't in turn cause many more problems?... I mean are you surious?

It's simple; what are the odds that one thing fails and the other doesn't?

The odds favor drafting a highly rated prospect in the first round, preferably as high as possible. It's a 50/50 shot whether they bust or not, but those odds are better than pretty much any other odds.

The odds do not favor signing a veteran free agent. Veteran's may spark you, but they leave you in a bigger hole than you started in when you don't have someone.

It makes no sense to me to be so risk averse that trading up for Robert Griffin III is too much risk because it could harm us in the draft and we could suffer for years because of that and yadda yadda yadda because our talent level is so low...and then turn around advocate signing a 36-year-old veteran who's only been in one offense his entire career and is coming off his third neck surgery because "all that cost is money" and not lost time developing a young quarterback, and that veteran is supposed to raise the talent level.

How a solid free agent class and drafting quality players in the later rounds could only help a guy like Manning, but OH NOES!, a solid free agency class and drafting quality players in the later rounds doesn't matter with RGIII, it would only serve to hurt any and all efforts in the future to get better.

Is trading up for RGIII the ideal situation? No. Is their risk involved? Yes. Is their more risk involved than signing Manning? No.

Every statistical analysis of the situation favors drafting RGIII, whatever the means, over signing Peyton Manning. I don't care if some people think he's the G.O.A.T. I really don't.

[Mahons21]

It makes no sense to me to be so risk averse that trading up for Robert Griffin III is too much risk because it could harm us in the draft and we could suffer for years because of that and yadda yadda yadda because our talent level is so low...and then turn around advocate signing a 36-year-old veteran who's only been in one offense his entire career and is coming off his third neck surgery because "all that cost is money" and not lost time developing a young quarterback, and that veteran is supposed to raise the talent level.

Who's to say we can't develop a young QB with Manning, if I'm not mistaken most people in favor of Manning are also in favor of developing a young QB behind him.

How a solid free agent class and drafting quality players in the later rounds could only help a guy like Manning, but OH NOES!, a solid free agency class and drafting quality players in the later rounds doesn't matter with RGIII, it would only serve to hurt any and all efforts in the future to get better.

1.) RG3 needs time to develop, despite what the RG3 clan thinks he's a very raw prospect, he comes from a spread offense and so forth.

2.) You're ignoring the fact that we could spend the picks used on RG3 to help the team as well, by carefully wording your post and saying "drafting quality players in the later rounds doesn't matter with RG3." And these aren't later round picks their early picks, which you are much more likely to succeed.

Is trading up for RGIII the ideal situation? No. Is their risk involved? Yes. Is their more risk involved than signing Manning? No.

Yahtzeee, that's all folks. Trading two first round draft picks plus at least another 2nd, isn't a larger risk to the team than an incentive laden contract? You realize this team is in cap heaven right now? I don't know what else to say at this point..

[pjfootballer]

I'm tired of trying to take guys and developing them (Campbell, Ramsey, Daniel, Palmer, Brennen,etc.). Developing a QB from later rounds rarely works.

---------- Post added February-14th-2012 at 04:15 PM ----------

Not that I'm advocating signing Peyton, but we are 47 million under the cap and he stated he'd play on an incentive laden contract, so the cap hit would be moot.

[Jericho]

And I'm going to preemptively say that we shouldn't touch Tannehill with a 10 foot pole, since he's become the board's favorite RGIII alternative. Tannehill was a 2nd round prospect before Barkley and Jones left, and he has done nothing with his game to improve in any appreciable way since they dropped out. His rise is solely and entirely due to him jumping from 5th to 3rd QB, and also the result of teams trying to justify him being a 1st round pick due to the fact that they know he'll need to get taken somewhere in the 1st. If he's there in the 2nd, then fine, he'd be worth it. Problem is he won't be there, so we need to just ignore him.

Actually you forgot Wilson here. He returned to school, jumping Tannehill from 6 all the way to 3.

[MattFancy]

Figure this would work better in here rather than making a new thread.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/nfl-draft-redskins-best-qb-option-could-be-texas-aandms-ryan-tannehill/2012/02/14/gIQAFZFXDR_blog.html

Would the Redskins be able to pull off a trade with the Rams at No. 2? It would seem like their chances are good. Shanahan is close with the new St. Louis coach, Jeff Fisher, who has helped Shanahan out with a quarterback in the draft before. In 2006, Shanahan interviewed Jay Cutler at the NFL Scouting Combine, but never had him out to Denver for a pre-draft workout/interview because he didn’t want other teams to suspect his interest. Instead, he picked the brain of Fisher, who had spent time with Cutler. The Broncos traded up to the 11th spot and selected the Vanderbilt passer.

Could that friendship come into play again?

Or, are the Redskins safer either using the sixth pick or trading down from there, adding more picks to improve their overall depth, using that first-rounder on another need and then getting Tannehill in the second?

There is some intrigue over Tannehill on the Redskins’ part. The coaches hoped for a chance to work with him at the Senior Bowl, but a broken foot kept that from happening, and it appears unlikely that he’ll be healthy in time for next week’s combine. But Tannehill was believed to have a first-round grade before his foot injury. He has good size at 6 feet 4, 222 pounds. Last season, he threw for 3,744 yards, 29 touchdowns and 15 interceptions. A converted wide receiver, he possesses good athleticism and mobility.

[Commander Adama]

While I happen to big a fan of Robert Griffin III, at no time have I written anything to suggest he's a "can't miss" player. What I have been saying throughout this thread though is that if he's the guy Mike Shanahan thinks can best run this offense, then go all in. If it's Ryan Tannehill or someone else, then get that person.

Are we all caught up now?

Tannehill?! Oh please no!

[Jericho]

Who's to say we can't develop a young QB with Manning, if I'm not mistaken most people in favor of Manning are also in favor of developing a young QB behind him.

I have no problem picking up some low round QB to "develop" behind Manning. Just realize the last low round QB to develop was Tom Brady and he's 34 now (as in it has not happened it quite some time). So it's not a particularly likely long term solution. If you're advocating burning a high pick on a QB, then I'd suggest that won't happen and would be a waste of assets. If you sign Manning, you go all in to win now. This team has too many holes to burn a high pick on a player that will never play during Manning's tenure. Although it might make good asset management to hedge your bet, it's not a practical result here.

1.) RG3 needs time to develop, despite what the RG3 clan thinks he's a very raw prospect, he comes from a spread offense and so forth.

2.) You're ignoring the fact that we could spend the picks used on RG3 to help the team as well, by carefully wording your post and saying "drafting quality players in the later rounds doesn't matter with RG3." And these aren't later round picks their early picks, which you are much more likely to succeed.

Every QB needs time to develop. Manning was about as good a QB propsect as there was, played a solid rookie year, and still went 3-13. Griffin is not uber raw like Tim Tebow or even a Tannehill for that matter. Or really Cam Newton. He's got things he needs to work on, but so would any rookie. Obviously making a commitment to Griffin is more for the long-term build, although a rookie surrounded by an other wise good team can post a good record (Big Ben/Flacco) or even one with a soft schedule and a little luck (Dalton).

Yahtzeee, that's all folks. Trading two first round draft picks plus at least another 2nd, isn't a larger risk to the team than an incentive laden contract? You realize this team is in cap heaven right now? I don't know what else to say at this point..

If you're talking about Manning, he brings several risks. Health be one. Salary space is another. Window is another. how long did it take Manning to win his first Super Bowl? 9 years? Do you bank on doing anything with him in the likely 2-3 years he plays here. Given the risks, the likely rewards are not super great. Griffin carries more risks to actually succeeding, but also a much greater potential return. I don't know the exact odds, but I think both moves are in the same ballpark.