Homer: Please just say no to Peyton Manning

[MattFancy]

If we take a QB to develop behind Manning, who says it has to be a low round pick?

[LadySkinsFan]

Manning isn't going to help develop anyone. If that was true, he would have done it with Painter and whoever else was a QB on the Colts. Painter struggled for years in pre-season. That worked out well for the Colts, didn't it, to have Manning develop a backup.

[issapunk]

There is only 1 reason to bring Manning in: To win a Superbowl NOW. One problem tho, we are not built to win a Superbowl right now. So if we bring Manning in and go 11-5 or so for the next 2-3 seasons and don't get a ring, I don't see a point. We need to draft a rookie QB (RG3) and let him develop along with the rest of the youth on this team. Then, he would hit the peak of his career along with the rest of the team and we could potentially be a powerhouse. Getting Manning delays the inevitable of getting our franchise guy.

[MattFancy]

Manning isn't going to help develop anyone. If that was true, he would have done it with Painter and whoever else was a QB on the Colts. Painter struggled for years in pre-season. That worked out well for the Colts, didn't it, to have Manning develop a backup.

Manning wouldn't have to develop a back up here. That's what the coaches are for.

[Mahons21]

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.

I'd be fine taking a QB in the 2nd or 3rd, where we could draft a Tannehill/Cousins. Schaub has developed quite well as a 3rd rounder, and despite what many would like to think Brees is a 2nd rounder, as is Andy Dalton who looked the part last year.

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).

Why is it that RG3 is considered so much further along than Tannehill? I'm not saying he isn't, but people act like it's a huge gap, fact of the matter is Tannehill already has more experience in

a.) Pro-style offense

b.) Going through progressions

c.) Dropping back from under C

While Griffin on the other hand simply has more experience running a college spread offense.

Again I'm not saying Tannehill isn't behind Griffin, but I find it odd that it's considered such conventional wisdom that Tannehill is some huge project but RG3 isn't a project at all.

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.

a.) Health concerns will be alleviated if he signs, point is moot.

b.) Skins are in cap heaven they have nearly 50 mil to work with, the risk to our cap space is very minimal

c.) Far too many factors go into winning a SB, all you can hope for is to be in contention, Manning was in contention by year 2-3, and that was because like you said he did need some time to develop.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I'd be fine taking a QB in the 2nd or 3rd, where we could draft a Tannehill/Cousins. Schaub has developed quite well as a 3rd rounder, and despite what many would like to think Brees is a 2nd rounder, as is Andy Dalton who looked the part last year.

Are you going to keep ignoring the literally hundreds of such prospects that didn't work out because it hurts your argument?

Why is it that RG3 is considered so much further along than Tannehill? I'm not saying he isn't, but people act like it's a huge gap, fact of the matter is Tannehill already has more experience in

a.) Pro-style offense

b.) Going through progressions

c.) Dropping back from under center

The "spread offense" argument against a prospect doesn't really work. Coming from a pro-style offense isn't in itself a plus attribute, otherwise Jimmy Clausen, Matt Leinart and Mark Sanchez would be tearing up the league.. Now, Tannehill does look pretty mechanically sound, but he actually locks onto one WR more often than Griffin does, and is inconsistent reading defenses, and when you watch his games against good defenses, as opposed to Baylor or SMU, he looks good throwing the ball and dropping back, but it doesn't always translate to the best accuracy, and he doesn't make the best decisions.

While Griffin on the other hand simply has more experience running a college spread offense.

Of course, it's not like Griffin is running a one-read and run offense - his level of involvement in the offense is no worse than most QBs, and he actually does scan the field and make multiple reads - when he has the time.

Again I'm not saying Tannehill isn't behind Griffin, but I find it odd that it's considered such conventional wisdom that Tannehill is some huge project but RG3 isn't a project at all.

Technically, RGIII is a project. But I think he will translate far more quickly than Tannehill, because he's a more accurate passer, especially deep, his athleticism will create mismatches more than Tannehill can, and I think he makes better decisions than Tannehill. And I think that Tannehill is a good prospect, but I don't think there's any aspect of his game that's "elite" or "special" outside his athleticism - above-average arm strength, slightly-above average accuracy, still not a great decison-maker as a 5th year senior, etc.

The difference between RGIII and Tannehill is not the same as the difference between, say, Eli/Rivers and Big Ben, more like the difference between Matt Stafford and Josh Freeman.

[KCClybun]

Why is it that RG3 is considered so much further along than Tannehill? I'm not saying he isn't, but people act like it's a huge gap, fact of the matter is Tannehill already has more experience in

a.) Pro-style offense

b.) Going through progressions

c.) Dropping back from under C

While Griffin on the other hand simply has more experience running a college spread offense.

Again I'm not saying Tannehill isn't behind Griffin, but I find it odd that it's considered such conventional wisdom that Tannehill is some huge project but RG3 isn't a project at all.

1.) Pro-style offense experience is overrated. It really is. There's gimmicky pro-style offenses. There's pro-style offenses that only require the quarterback to make one or two reads and then run. The fact of the matter is, the spread offenses that are run today are a lot more based on shotgun, pro-style offensive concepts than they were in the days of the Run and Shoot, for example.

2.) You have no factual basis for saying RGIII doesn't go through progressions other than, what, the one Alamo Bowl game I posted? The majority of RGIII's cut ups got nuked off YouTube, but this concept that he "doesn't go through progressions" is silly and misguided

Fact is, both Tannehill (and one of the knocks on Tannehill from a scouting prospective is that he's slow to get through his progressions and will sometimes lock onto one receiver) and RGIII have a lot of the same offensive concepts, if Mike Sherman's WCO is anything like ours.

I posted this in the "Plan C" thread but never got a response. (Sorry for the uber long post, I'll try and cut as much out as possible)

Here's a play from the 2004 Denver Broncos Playbook, something we'd be likely to run here.

Solo Right 200 Jet Thunder with Tiger (2 TEs) personnel. Solo Right is the formation (the Tight End lines up on the right side of the formation), 200 Jet is the offensive line protection (ask K-Dawg about that, I suck at o-line assignments), Thunder is the route run by the Z and X receivers.

The underlined numbers are the progressions. You'll see there are two number ones, and two numbers twos, with 3 in the middle.

Pre-snap, the quarterback will read the coverage. As it states on the play; if the quarterback and wide receiver see cover 2 pre-snap, the wide receiver runs a fade route. If the wide receiver gets bump and run, he'll run a stop.

So why are there two of the same numbers?

Based on the coverage, the quarterback picks which side of the formation he likes best. If he doesn't like he sees on his "Z" receiver, like they see them rotating coverage that way, he has the latitude to work to the left side of the formation and go through his progressions accordingly.

Ladies and gentlemen, I just introduced everyone to the spread, by using a dropback pass for our head coach designed!

You still have to diagnose coverages in the spread. Then, based on the defense and the match up, you pick which side of the formation you're going to throw to. To the untrained eye, it looks like "oh, he's only reading half the field". The idea that a quarterback can only make one or two reads in the spread is bull**** though, especially nowadays.

And lest you think I'm cherry picking, here's another play...

.

Fact is, the way you teach most quarterbacks how to read and go through progressions, is you start with reading one side of the field, and then the more comfortable they become with that, then you start to spread out across the rest of the field. And the way our offense operates (using lots of mirrored routes, trying to exploit the best match up of the defense to give us the biggest and best possibility for a big play), we leave it to the quarterback's discretion to chose which side of the formation offers the best possible play.

This is very, very close to what Baylor does with their spread attack. Mirrored routes on the outside, with different route combinations inside as their second read, and an outlet option like a tight end or running back.

3.) See number 1. If RGIII can't get comfortable dropping back from center (and when he does drop back he looks pretty comfortable, if not completely confident in it yet), Kyle will just do what Jeremy Bates did with Jay Cutler in Denver and have him work in the shotgun more. You adjust to your quarterbacks strengths.

[Mahons21]

You got a link to that playbook? What percentage of plays are mirror routes?

You didn't get a response, because NFL offenses are nothing like the spread, yes some NFL plays do cut the field in half for the QB, but many don't.

[Taylor 36]

Do people not realize that with the new collective bargaining agreement, rookies hit free agency earlier now? So let's talk about what happens if the Redskins did actually sign Peyton Manning and draft a rookie to sit around a watch him play. For starters, Manning is going to want to stick around (I'm guessing) for at least three years. And then, in all likelihood, you're signing a guy like Robert Griffin III or Ryan Tannehill for four years. Let's say, by some miracle, Manning did remain healthy and played all three years. Then you're looking at that same rookie quarterback going into the final year of his rookie deal without having ever taken an actual snap, meaning you're still not sure he's actually any good and you're going to have to break the bank to keep him around. So I ask again, why is bringing Manning in a good idea?

Do you not realize that the poster you are quoting wasn't advocating signing Manning; he was simply pointing out that signing Manning does not mean that we can't also draft our QB of the future. Your laying out a lot of "what if's" in your post, when your reasoning and plan are riddled with "what if's". There are more scenarios that could play out with this team with the QB situation this offseason than anyone can count, yet you want to jump all over someone for simply pointing out that one venture isn't mutual exclusive of others. The contracts and playing time/scenarios of players are somethings that would have to be part of the overall future plan, something that we now have people capable of making and seeing through. This isn't a Vinnie run team any more, though, interestingly enough, there are many Vinnie wannabes here that are advocating mortgaging the future for a single player that is NOT NFL ready. It is kind of sad, actually.

I couldn't agree more with this post. Thank you for being one of the few -- a Redskins fan who is actually capable of rational thought.

:doh: You really want to go there? Those that don't agree with you have to be irrational, huh? Some one's head has gotten too big for their shoulders, hasn't it?

Yes, you should totally hide under your bed and never attempt to draft another rookie quarterback because one time, back in 1994, the Redskins made a bad decision and drafted the wrong guy. If the team stopped signing free agents every time that didn't work out, then there would be 12 players on the roster -- last year's draft class.

Interesting point coming from a guy who started a thread and is living on the argument that we should run and hide from signing one of the best QB's ever because the Redskins made bad decisions and signed some wrong guys in the past. Once again, you wanted to call all of those who don't agree with your opinion "irrational"? It is irrational to believe that all future QB FA signings are bad because of the failures of the past, and then turn around and try to call out people who make the same irrational correlation to drafting. Come on, Murf. You're better than that!

[KCClybun]

You got a link to that playbook? What percentage of plays are mirror routes?

You didn't get a response, because NFL offenses are nothing like the spread, yes some NFL plays do cut the field in half for the QB, but many don't.

Here, if you want to count all the plays, knock yourself out.

It's not just mirrored routes, running the same thing on both sides of the field. But there's a lot of "read the left side of the field, read the right side of the field pre-snap, pick which option is better". Which is what they do in the spread, particular the version RGIII plays in.

Oh, BTW; that offense that Tom Brady runs? It's a spread offense. Pretty much the only time he drops back is off a play action passes. He takes like 90% of his snaps from the gun.

The offense Peyton runs? It's a hurry-up, high tempo version of the spread. The Colts didn't even have a fullback on the roster until this season. They didn't have an I-Formation in their play book until this season. The Colts entire offensive playbook boiled down to singleback formations and the shotgun, almost exclusively.

The "ooohh, the spread is evil, it's a gimmick college thing!" mentality is dying as more and more NFL football teams continue to incorporate spread concepts into their playbooks, while on the college level they apply pro-style concepts to the spread.

[Dallsux]

If there is a defining characteristic of the Washington Redskins during the Daniel Snyder era, it’s that every year the front office talks itself into believing the franchise is close to turning the corner toward respectability which can only mean they’re just one or two moves away from contending with the big boys.

I whole heartedly agree Murf. I feel like this is a tipping point for this FO. If they choose to go after Manning, they will prove that they have learned nothing from previous mistakes & will more than likely set us back another 5 years. I cannot imagine it not costing us 2 arms & a leg for him.

On the other hand, if they pass on him & stay the course, they will continue to move forward thru rebuilding with youth & prove that they have, in fact, learned from past mistakes, are no longer trying to play fantasy football & win in the offseason.

We may still be a few years away from competing regularly, but we have little depth right now & going after a big name QB (even tho he is probably the best QB of our generation...actually, probably the best QB in several generations) is just a bad idea. Especially one that will cost us as much a Peyton will.

[grego]

I cannot imagine it not costing us 2 arms & a leg for him.

what do you mean by that? i think one of the selling points of manning coming here would be that we'd have all of our draft picks to address other needs (such as a future QB). it would only cost $, of which we have plenty.

[martytheman]

I whole heartedly agree Murf. I feel like this is a tipping point for this FO. If they choose to go after Manning, they will prove that they have learned nothing from previous mistakes & will more than likely set us back another 5 years. I cannot imagine it not costing us 2 arms & a leg for him.

On the other hand, if they pass on him & stay the course, they will continue to move forward thru rebuilding with youth & prove that they have, in fact, learned from past mistakes, are no longer trying to play fantasy football & win in the offseason.

So what happens when they "stay the course" and don't draft the es consensus best qb ever??

Does that set the franchise back 5 years too?

We may still be a few years away from competing regularly, but we have little depth right now & going after a big name QB (even tho he is probably the best QB of our generation...actually, probably the best QB in several generations) is just a bad idea. Especially one that will cost us as much a Peyton will.

the same could be said about giving up the upper rounds in 2 straight drafts for a rookie qb... but it's different somehow?

[SWFLSkins]

Throwing a wrench in any plans is the looming decision to be made by Peyton....

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-02-14/irsay-wants-manning-to-stay-with-colts----conditionally

"We can make it work if he wants to be here," Irsay told Chappell. "We’d be excited to have him back and finish his career with us."

Although he's leaving the decision solely to Manning, Irsay also noted the two factors complicating the situation: Manning's road to recovery after an entire season lost to neck surgery and Manning giving the team a financial break in relation to that status.

March 8 — exactly six months after Manning had what was in effect season-ending surgery — remains the red-letter date in the process. That's when Manning would be due an option bonus worth $28 million. If Irsay wants to avoid paying that, he must release Manning into the NFL's current pool of unrestricted free agents before then.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-02-14/irsay-wants-manning-to-stay-with-colts----conditionally#ixzz1mQ1p2T6h

[s0crates]

I tend to agree with the sentiment that we should pass on Manning for very much the same reasons as those cited in the OP. Signing Manning would just feel like more of the same. I would sooner be done with aging vets whose past was greater than their future will be, and whose reputation is worth more in a contract than their potential would otherwise warrant. I need not recite the litany of times that strategy has backfired in DC. Not only did the OP do a nice job of that, but we all know it by heart anyway. Let's stop with the splashy moves, and start making sensible ones.

I also tend to feel this way about moving up in the draft to get RG3. How much would it cost? I'm hearing talk of trading away two first round picks, a 2nd round pick, and perhaps more. To move up four spots in the draft? Craziness. That sounds to me more like a VInny Cerrato move and less like a Bruce Allen move.

What should we do instead? Well that I do not know. Obviously we need a quarterback, I know that. I do not pretend to have the answer to this problem, but here is a hypothetical:

In free agency we could target somebody like Kyle Orton, who is on the right side of 30, and at least a reliable vet we can plug in right away. Orton would not be a world-beater, but he would be a big upgrade at least, seeing as he throws a lot more TDs than INTs, which is more than I can say for last year's guy.

In the draft, maybe we trade down and pick Tannehill, although I personally would like to see us take a flier on an underrated guy like Brandon Weeden.

It is not a dream scenario I guess, entering 2012 with the tandem of Orton and Weeden. It simply does not sound as fun as entering the season with a big name like Manning or RG3. But maybe we should leave the splashy moves in the past and stick to sensible ones. Orton is a servicable starter, which is much better than we have now. Weeden is way undervalued for the simple fact that he is 28. If he were a few years younger, we would be talking about picking him at #6, but as it is we can get him for much less, possibly even gaining more picks by trading down.

Compare that to overspending just to land a big name like Manning or RG3, leaving ourselves with a seriously injured quarterback fast approaching 40, or a high risk/reward prospect and no draft picks left to put talent around him.

[Redskins4ever]

what do you mean by that? i think one of the selling points of manning coming here would be that we'd have all of our draft picks to address other needs (such as a future QB). it would only cost $, of which we have plenty.

But the thing is Manning would be a solution for the short term. Since Peyton Manning is a cut above the ordinary free agent QB, signing him would be a plus. But drafting our own QB is the right direction to go in.

[DogofWar1]

***Playbook and Spread discussion***

Man, you are on the ball with this stuff. Nice playbook.

I would be a little more worried about him if he had come from an option system, or had played out of the single wing formation his entire career, but I feel like saying someone is from a spread offense isn't nearly the knock it used to be. It's clear that plenty of the concepts that exist in the spread translate to the NFL pretty well.

what do you mean by that? i think one of the selling points of manning coming here would be that we'd have all of our draft picks to address other needs (such as a future QB). it would only cost $, of which we have plenty.

We need to be careful here though. Plenty of money can become very little money real quick, especially when guys like Manning are discussed. I realize most fans view the words Free Agency as a dirty phrase, but the sheer amount of really good talent out there can not be discounted. If we signed Manning, we'd be largely giving up our ability to tap that talent, at least in a way that could fill most of our holes. Seriously, Manning is probably going to cost many millions more than Flynn, who will want a large contract, and Flynn would cost a lot more than someone like Orton. Money, while we do have a lot of it, isn't an infinite resource, and signing a guy like Manning who probably eats up a 3rd of our open cap space before we sign anyone else would make things a little difficult.

[grego]

But the thing is Manning would be a solution for the short term. Since Peyton Manning is a cut above the ordinary free agent QB, signing him would be a plus. But drafting our own QB is the right direction to go in.

oh, i wasnt advocating signing him (for the record, i'd only be in favor of it if he were healthy and if we draft a young QB to groom. even then, i'd prefer to try to move up for rg3)

i was only commenting on the cost to get him.

We need to be careful here though. Plenty of money can become very little money real quick, especially when guys like Manning are discussed. I realize most fans view the words Free Agency as a dirty phrase, but the sheer amount of really good talent out there can not be discounted. If we signed Manning, we'd be largely giving up our ability to tap that talent, at least in a way that could fill most of our holes. Seriously, Manning is probably going to cost many millions more than Flynn, who will want a large contract, and Flynn would cost a lot more than someone like Orton. Money, while we do have a lot of it, isn't an infinite resource, and signing a guy like Manning who probably eats up a 3rd of our open cap space before we sign anyone else would make things a little difficult.

i get what you're saying, and you may be right. but, i do know that for years, we were destined to be in 'salary cap hell'. we still found a way to sign over the hill players to bloated contracts just about every year. it almost seemed like the salary cap as it applied to the rest of the nfl didnt really apply here.

thats not to say that we should spend our money like we're making it rain- we still need to be smart about it. but i'm not sure signing manning would prevent us from getting any other player we wanted.

[Chump Bailey]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/2012/02/eyeing-redskins-qb-options-drafting-plan-griffin/274541

Where they can get him » They'll have to trade up with St. Louis at No. 2 to get him. Cleveland controls this situation because it has two first-round picks, including No. 4 overall. It would be tough to beat their offer. But if they're not interested then the Redskins are in a good spot. They would give the Rams the ability to trade back and still get a high pick. The early rumors are about the cost being three first-round picks. That's tough to see; the price always drops on draft day. In 2004, New York essentially moved from No. 4 to No. 1 with San Diego for Eli Manning by giving the Chargers a third-rounder that year and then a first and a fifth in 2005. In 2001, Atlanta traded their first-round pick (fifth overall), a third-rounder as well as a second-round pick in 2002 plus receiver Tim Dwight to get the No. 1 pick and Michael Vick.

Chances of it happening » Decent. If the Redskins can't get Peyton Manning, the guess is they'll be aggressive. They won't get to Super Bowl contention by signing Kyle Orton and drafting a guy in the fourth or fifth round to groom. That's a recipe for mediocrity. Keep in mind that after taking 12 rookies last year, the Redskins do not need a big draft class again this year. Also, they have a lot of cap space available (approximately $40 million) to spend in free agency. So a lot of needs they have could be met before the draft, leaving them one big need still to fill.

[martytheman]

Interesting point coming from a guy who started a thread and is living on the argument that we should run and hide from signing one of the best QB's ever because the Redskins made bad decisions and signed some wrong guys in the past. Once again, you wanted to call all of those who don't agree with your opinion "irrational"? It is irrational to believe that all future QB FA signings are bad because of the failures of the past, and then turn around and try to call out people who make the same irrational correlation to drafting. Come on, Murf. You're better than that!

BURN!!!

Murf, time for you to go home, turn out the lights and hide under the blankets.

that was awesome

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

>trade for RGIII, one of the most complete QB prospects ever, use ample cap space to fill our few remaining holes in the short-term, still have plenty of draft picks to build depth and future starters

>YOU CANT BUILD A TEAM BY FREE AGENCY STOP BEING LIKE VINNY

>sign a 36 year old Peyton Manning for 15-20 million a year who may not even be the same Peyton Manning he was at 33, draft a 2nd or 3rd round caliber prospect at a position where being 2nd round is almost a mortal lock for non-stardom (for every Brees or Dalton, there's about 10-15 J.P Losmans and Jason Campbells)

>oh by the way manning doesn't fit our scheme, while RGIII is almost a prototypical fit

>OH WERE BEING RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE TO USE HIGH DRAFT PICKS ON A QUARTERBACK, BECAUSE USING HIGH DRAFT PICKS ON A QB NEVER WORKS

awesome logic

If people ran their businesses like this, they'd all go bust because they'd refuse to make investments in their future because of a fear of short-term debt.

[pjfootballer]

I also tend to feel this way about moving up in the draft to get RG3. How much would it cost? I'm hearing talk of trading away two first round picks, a 2nd round pick, and perhaps more. To move up four spots in the draft? Craziness. That sounds to me more like a VInny Cerrato move and less like a Bruce Allen move.

What should we do instead? Well that I do not know. Obviously we need a quarterback, I know that. I do not pretend to have the answer to this problem, but here is a hypothetical:

In free agency we could target somebody like Kyle Orton, who is on the right side of 30, and at least a reliable vet we can plug in right away. Orton would not be a world-beater, but he would be a big upgrade at least, seeing as he throws a lot more TDs than INTs, which is more than I can say for last year's guy.

In the draft, maybe we trade down and pick Tannehill, although I personally would like to see us take a flier on an underrated guy like Brandon Weeden.

It is not a dream scenario I guess, entering 2012 with the tandem of Orton and Weeden. It simply does not sound as fun as entering the season with a big name like Manning or RG3. But maybe we should leave the splashy moves in the past and stick to sensible ones. Orton is a servicable starter, which is much better than we have now. Weeden is way undervalued for the simple fact that he is 28. If he were a few years younger, we would be talking about picking him at #6, but as it is we can get him for much less, possibly even gaining more picks by trading down.

Compare that to overspending just to land a big name like Manning or RG3, leaving ourselves with a seriously injured quarterback fast approaching 40, or a high risk/reward prospect and no draft picks left to put talent around him.

At first I gave the Manning thing a thought and said, "it might be ok". I've cooled off to that and at this point I would rather draft our guy.

I keep reading that nobody wants to give up picks to move up and get a franchise QB. The Giants did it and they have 2 SBs. The Falcons did it and got Vick before he beat dogs. The price will come down closer to the draft after the free agency smoke clears. My thought is, it will take a 1st and 3rd this year and a 1st and 4th or 5th in 2013. Sometimes you have to that to get a great guy under center.

We have 18 (EIGHTEEN!) picks in the next 2 drafts. Giving up 3 picks is nothing and they haven't even given out compensatory picks (we may get 1 this year based on the formula). This isn't Vinnny running the show. The current FO has shown 3 things:

1) They can get good value out of every round. They have targeted specific types of players they want (team captains, 3-4 year starters)

2) They have shown they have the ability to trade up or down and still recoup picks if necessary.

3) They have been able to target free agents that are under 28, are cap friendly and fit the offensive/defensive system that we are running.

With that said, I feel that by the time we head to the draft, most of our picks will be for depth (which is what you want) and we won't be going into the draft trying to find an impact player in the later rounds (which is what we used to do).

I highlighted a couple of places in your post for a reason. Do you really want more "Serviceable" veteran QBs? Do you really want 2nd to 7th round "Project/Developemental" QBs? I'm sick of everyone elses garbage. I'm tired of not taking an impact player behind center. Luck and RG3 are impact players at the position that we have the most need for. It's been 20 years. Let the ghost of Heath Shuler die and let's take a chance. Do you want the team to be mediocre forever?

We can't keep putting off the inevitable. We need a QB. With that said, I wouldn't mind signing a guy like Orton to a 1 year deal, but we need to move up and draft one of the big 2. We'd still have 8 picks this year (We would be trading their 1 for our 1 and lose a 3rd) and 7 picks next year.

---------- Post added February-15th-2012 at 08:45 AM ----------

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/2012/02/eyeing-redskins-qb-options-drafting-plan-griffin/274541

Good article Chump. Maybe this will convince the naysayers who don't want to give up picks for an impact quarterback.

[Chump Bailey]

Good article Chump. Maybe this will convince the naysayers who don't want to give up picks for an impact quarterback.

I thought it was good too - thanks.

Well, I'll confess to still being on the fence somewhat. For the record: I love RG3 and the cost to trade up is probably a little overblown right now, but we'll see. But, for this poster, it's freaking HARD not to want Peyton. We'd be going from Jason, Rex and John (explosive vomit) Beck to Peyton Manning. Come on. Talk about a reversal. I really still am not opposed to signing Manning - keeping our picks intact and taking Tannehill. I'll take the easy route and say I'd be very happy with both scenarios

[grego]

I thought it was good too - thanks.

Well, I'll confess to still being on the fence somewhat. For the record: I love RG3 and the cost to trade up is probably a little overblown right now, but we'll see. But, for this poster, it's freaking HARD not to want Peyton. We'd be going from Jason, Rex and John (explosive vomit) Beck to Peyton Manning. Come on. Talk about a reversal. I really still am not opposed to signing Manning - keeping our picks intact and taking Tannehill. I'll take the easy route and say I'd be very happy with both scenarios

agree. i'd be happy either way, though i do prefer going young with rg3.

i wont lose sleep if we sign manning and take tannehill.

[DCBnG21]

The last thing I want the Redskins to do is sign an aging & injured vet. Just stay away from any and all of them.

Manning would be the single exception. I think you take a chance on a guy like Manning, he is one of the best all-time. A legendary hard worker who is fiercely competitive.

That being said, we have to pay attention to our long-term future & we have to find our own Manning coming up through the draft. Still, Manning is the one aging vet that they can sign that I won't lose sleep over. You have to take a chance on him if the opportunity presents itself.