Homer: Please just say no to Peyton Manning

[pjfootballer]

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

I was on the fence about it, but my inner self convinced me to go the young drafted QB route. I want homegrown guys, not retreads (even as good as Peyton might come back to play) or later round project QBs. We've gone all those routes since 1994. Heath Shuler was the last top 5 QB we drafted and for the record, I wanted Trent Dilfer over Shuler. Even though Dilfer didn't have a great career, I thought his skillset would have worked better with Norv Turners offense then the Buccaneers offense. The Bucs were terrible (as usual) at that time and I thought Dilfer could have emulated some of the stuff that Turner did with Aikman. And I'n not saying Dilfer would have been as good as Aikman, but he had a similar build and playing style.

Also, I wanted JJ Stokes over Michael Westbrook. I though MW was a flash in the pan "I caught a hailmary" WR. Stokes was a 3 year starter at UCLA and I think his career suffered in SF because he went from being the #1 WR on his team in college, to the #3 option on the Niners behind Rice and Owens. He and Dilfer would have been a great 1-2 punch with Stephen Davis.

[themurf]

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!

Actually, I don't want the Redskins to avoiding signing Manning "because the Redskins made bad decisions and signed some wrong guys in the past." I want them to avoid him because I find it hard to believe that a 36-year-old who undergoes three neck surgeries in 19 months can stay healthy and productive as the franchise's quarterback for the next decade. I'd much rather see the team avoid temptation in favor of drafting and developing their own quarterback of the future. But that's just me. And clearly my head has gotten too big for my shoulders, right?

---------- Post added February-15th-2012 at 10:31 AM ----------

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

To me, the more relevant part of John Keim's article that Chump Bailey links to is this:

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.

Keim seems to come in on the same side of the fence as me -- because the team got a dozen new players from last year's draft, they can afford to package away a few picks for RG3 and still come away with more over the last two years than the franchise typically lands over a two year stretch. Add in the $40 million in cap room that can help to upgrade the offensive line/secondary/wherever and it's not the doom and gloom scenario some in this thread have painted it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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...

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.

Can't it be said, though, that trading away so many draft picks--picks that would most certainly build up our depth and fill holes--for one single player is no different than having the mindset that the Redskins are "one or two players away"? Because that's exactly what we did in the past...traded draft picks for veterans with the idea that "one or two" players would put the Skins over the hump.

[themurf]

Can't it be said, though, that trading away so many draft picks--picks that would most certainly build up our depth and fill holes--for one single player is no different than having the mindset that the Redskins are "one or two players away"?

Glad you asked. See my post directly above your comment.

[pjfootballer]

Let's say that we make the trade with the Rams. Just looking through here the last few weeks it looks like the ES consusus is it will take 4 picks. We would essentially be swapping 1st rounders and have to give up 3 more. We have 18 picks the next 2 drafts (not counting compensatory picks if we are eligible) and giving up 3 picks, we'd still have 15. Each draft is 7 rounds, so in essense we have 2 full drafts left "AFTER" the trade and one extra pick. So can someone explain to me how that is going to effect our "depth" when the FO has show with the 12 picks last year they can get maximum value out of each round?

Sure we'd be giving up potentially a 2nd or 3rd rounder this year, but we 2 fourth round picks to use as leverage to trade back into the 3rd round or possibly the 2nd round. In 2013, the hope is, with RG3 or Luck on board, it increases our win total by 3-5 games (Cam Newton improved the Panthers 32nd ranked offense to a top 15 offense and led them from 2 wins to 6) which means the Rams will have our mid 1st round pick. If we give up a 2nd this year, we likely only give up a 4th or 5th in 2013, which will still leave us with a 2nd and 3rd.

Point being, we'll still have FIFTEEN picks. It's not about trading picks for 1 player or that we are one player away. It's trading for an impact player at the most important position on offense that we've lacked for 20 years.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Glad you asked. See my post directly above your comment.

I'm not sure if that answers what I was saying, though lol...

If I'm reading you right, you feel that the Skins are in a strong enough position to now be able to afford using multiple draft picks on a player if they (or you) think that player will get the Skins over the hump?

Or are you saying that the Skins are NOT in a strong enough position to get over the hump no matter who they add or how many draft picks they may keep or trade away, so might as well go for the "one player" now and draft to fill holes/depth later?

My main point was: if the Skins are indeed a team that is not OPA (one player away--tired of typing it lol), should they pursue any avenues that require them to give up young talent via the draft?...Because what sunk us in the past was not simply going after free agents due to that OPA mentality, it was trading away draft picks to do so.

[Pick6]

I'm not sure if that answers what I was saying, though lol...

If I'm reading you right, you feel that the Skins are in a strong enough position to now be able to afford using multiple draft picks on a player if they (or you) think that player will get the Skins over the hump?

Or are you saying that the Skins are NOT in a strong enough position to get over the hump no matter who they add or how many draft picks they may keep or trade away, so might as well go for the "one player" now and draft to fill holes/depth later?

My main point was: if the Skins are indeed a team that is not OPA (one player away--tired of typing it lol), should they pursue any avenues that require them to give up young talent via the draft?...Because what sunk us in the past was not simply going after free agents due to that OPA mentality, it was trading away draft picks to do so.

I think the thing is with a young drafted QB you have the opportunity to continue to build over the next couple years. The whole team goes through the rebuild together. If you bring in a veteran like Peyton to compete now, but the rest of the team isn't there yet you are back to 'no' QB in a couple years when that vet is done.

Like it was said above, even trading away draft picks doesn't hurt the rebuild, because we would still have 15 picks combining this year and next. Not every player has to be a 1st rounder, especially if you are looking for depth.

[themurf]

I'm not sure if that answers what I was saying, though lol...

If I'm reading you right, you feel that the Skins are in a strong enough position to now be able to afford using multiple draft picks on a player if they (or you) think that player will get the Skins over the hump?

Or are you saying that the Skins are NOT in a strong enough position to get over the hump no matter who they add or how many draft picks they may keep or trade away, so might as well go for the "one player" now and draft to fill holes/depth later?

My main point was: if the Skins are indeed a team that is not OPA (one player away--tired of typing it lol), should they pursue any avenues that require them to give up young talent via the draft?...Because what sunk us in the past was not simply going after free agents due to that OPA mentality, it was trading away draft picks to do so.

It appears that right now The Redskins have nine picks in the 2012 draft (counting the seventh round comp. pick they were apparently awarded last week). Last year, the team selected 12 players in the draft. That's 21 new players before factoring in any potential trades up or down. So even if they package some to move up to land RG3 at the No. 2 pick, they're still in great shape because they're finally taking the draft seriously.

[pjfootballer]

That was an old thread Murf. No Comp picks have been awarded yet. We have 9 picks because of the trades with Minnesota (McNabb-6th round) and Oakland (Campbell- 4th round).

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I think the thing is with a young drafted QB you have the opportunity to continue to build over the next couple years. The whole team goes through the rebuild together. If you bring in a veteran like Peyton to compete now, but the rest of the team isn't there yet you are back to 'no' QB in a couple years when that vet is done.

Like it was said above, even trading away draft picks doesn't hurt the rebuild, because we would still have 15 picks combining this year and next. Not every player has to be a 1st rounder, especially if you are looking for depth.

I tend to agree :yes:...so it's more like the 2nd scenario I just described.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It appears that right now The Redskins have nine picks in the 2012 draft (counting the seventh round comp. pick they were apparently awarded last week). Last year, the team selected 12 players in the draft. That's 21 new players before factoring in any potential trades up or down. So even if they package some to move up to land RG3 at the No. 2 pick, they're still in great shape because they're finally taking the draft seriously.

Is there a realistic point--in terms of trading picks--in which you'd say drafting RG3 would be worse than signing Manning and keeping all draft picks? (I said "realistic", meaning no Ditka/Ricky Williams type moves lol)...

[Pick6]

I tend to agree :yes:...so it's more like the 2nd scenario I just described.

Right, I missed that part. The one red word made me go right to those two last sentences.

[themurf]

That was an old thread Murf. No Comp picks have been awarded yet. We have 9 picks because of the trades with Minnesota (McNabb-6th round) and Oakland (Campbell- 4th round).

I feel like Grant Paulsen or someone tweeted last week that the Redskins did, in fact, pick up a comp. pick. I may be losing it, but I feel like that definitely happen within the last seven days or so. If not, please forgive me.

Is there a realistic point--in terms of trading picks--in which you'd say drafting RG3 would be worse than signing Manning and keeping all draft picks? (I said "realistic", meaning no Ditka/Ricky Williams type moves lol)...

Of course there's a breaking point. If the Rams were steadfast in demanding three number one picks, I'd really need to feel that this is the one guy who can help the Redskins win a Super Bowl. Simply thinking "well, he's the best available option this offseason" can't cut it at that price tag. The coaching staff would have to feel like if they didn't land him, the Mike Shanahan era cannot success in Washington to give up something like that.

[pjfootballer]

It was this thread Murf. It fooled me also.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?345530-Larry-Weisman-Twitter-Redskins-Awarded-7th-round-Compensatory-Draft-Selection&highlight=awarded

This was by Larry Weisman, so you may be right if Paulson tweeted it. Or maybe he was speculating that's what we'd get.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Of course there's a breaking point.

For some here, there isn't. RG3 at any cost.

If the Rams were steadfast in demanding three number one picks, I'd really need to feel that this is the one guy who can help the Redskins win a Super Bowl.

Do you think he is?...What about Luck?

[MartinC]

It was this thread Murf. It fooled me also.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?345530-Larry-Weisman-Twitter-Redskins-Awarded-7th-round-Compensatory-Draft-Selection&highlight=awarded

This was by Larry Weisman, so you may be right if Paulson tweeted it. Or maybe he was speculating that's what we'd get.

Compensation picks have not been awarded yet, it's normally only a week or two before the draft it's announced.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

RGIII is not a "one player away move". It's an investment for the next decade. That's why I've consistently said that the Browns are stupid for rolling with Colt McCoy when they can ensure they'll have RGIII.

Getting RGIII, getting a franchise QB, a player who has the potential to not just be serviceable (and why, why, WHY is it okay to have a "serviceable" QB - nobody, ever, EVER says that a "serviceable WR" or "servicable RG" is okay - we have to have Pro Bowlers at that position, but it's okay for the QB to be serviceable), but dominant, gives us flexibility to do whatever the hell we want in the draft for the next decade.

It is really hard to **** up having a franchise QB. Incompetent franchises like the Cowboys and Chargers can win 8-10 games a year simply because they have top 10 QBs. Competent franchises like the Steelers and Giants have won 2 Super Bowls EACH since they drafted their QBs. The Pats won 3 with Brady. The Saints won one with Brees, have been to an NFCCG and some NFC divisional games. Aaron Rodgers already has one in 4 years as a starter. A healthy Stafford took the Lions from 6-10 to 10-6 with no run game and only one WR. The point is that when you have a chance, a reasonably good chance as opposed to a shot in the dark, at a true blue franchise QB, you take it. You can work around the consequences later. If you draft well you'll have depth and future young starters at other positions, just less of them. If you do your homework in FA, you'll still have a complete team.

Being conservative is not going to get us anywhere. We'll sign Manning, get 2 or 3 good years (and it's not a given they'll be elite years), and then what? We hope the guy we drafted to sit 3 years because we didn't want to deal with the QB problem is actually good? Guys sit all the time, and end up sucking. We draft another guy? That may not be as good? Yeah, when Manning is retired after most likely not having won us a SB, while we see RGIII tearing up the league, we'll be able to say "Hey, at least we had a few 10-6 seasons!". Yeah, no. I want to build a dynasty with a great QB at the helm, not shoot for a 3 year run of above-average and a subsequent fizzle-out.

[flock53]

In THIS case the OP is wrong. YES we always splash with this/that big name FRA. One thing is for certain...you are NEVER are one DT/WR/CB away from the big boy dance. In this case your talking about the QB position. If he can work out and prove hes healthy then YES you consider it. He is NO McBuster. You could then see if Blaylock falls in our lap at #6 and get him a weapon or bring in Garcon who is young and has rapport w/him already. Take the next best OT (Reilly) at #6 OR trade down to maybe the 9-15 range and hope to get OG DeCostra (stanford) and get another pick also. Maybe both Cincys 1st rounders for Richardson if hes there at #6 as Benson is a bum and TR is YOUNG as a 1yr starter and dont have college miles on his legs already.

[GibbsFactor]

Compensation picks have not been awarded yet, it's normally only a week or two before the draft it's announced.

Done during the owners meetings in late March.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

RGIII is not a "one player away move". It's an investment for the next decade. That's why I've consistently said that the Browns are stupid for rolling with Colt McCoy when they can ensure they'll have RGIII.

But if the team is, say, 7 players away, would a move that could realistically rob that team of 4 of those players be delaying success as much as not drafting "the" QB?

Being conservative is not going to get us anywhere. We'll sign Manning, get 2 or 3 good years (and it's not a given they'll be elite years), and then what? We hope the guy we drafted to sit 3 years because we didn't want to deal with the QB problem is actually good? Guys sit all the time, and end up sucking. We draft another guy? That may not be as good? Yeah, when Manning is retired after most likely not having won us a SB, while we see RGIII tearing up the league, we'll be able to say "Hey, at least we had a few 10-6 seasons!". Yeah, no. I want to build a dynasty with a great QB at the helm, not shoot for a 3 year run of above-average and a subsequent fizzle-out.

The same "what if" scenario can be said for any possibility, though...

"What if" Manning helps get the Skins to the SB (or at least the conference championship game) and in 3 years our 2nd round QB is more than capable of carrying the torch for the next 10 years...meanwhile, RG3 is little better than Vince Young?

"What if" Barkley ends up being better than both RG3 and Luck, and we end up drafting him next year with our 1st round pick that we still have because we signed Manning instead of using that draft pick on RG3?

"What if" Jessica Biel declares her undying love and lust for a certain California-based Redskins fan because she's impressed with his post count?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

But if the team is, say, 7 players away, would a move that could realistically rob that team of 4 of those players be delaying success as much as not drafting "the" QB?

No, because it's easier to get non-QB players than QBs. And you can have literally 6 star players + a QB (and they can all play the same position forcing you to play some of them out of position) and win a Super Bowl.

"What if" Manning helps get the Skins to the SB (or at least the conference championship game) and in 3 years our 2nd round QB is more than capable of carrying the torch for the next 10 years...meanwhile, RG3 is little better than Vince Young?

Given the history of 2nd round QBs, and the sheer quality of RGIII as a prospect, I'd say that's decidedly unlikely. Possible? Yeah. Likely? Probably not.

"What if" Barkley ends up being better than both RG3 and Luck, and we end up drafting him next year with our 1st round pick that we still have because we signed Manning instead of using that draft pick on RG3?

But if your first scenario holds, we will have a pick in the last first round, which would make it, short of a Ditka-style deal, impossible to draft Barkley? It's possible but not probable Barkley could be better than RG3, but we won't get him if we sign Manning, unless Manning is a complete flop.

"What if" Jessica Biel declares her undying love and lust for a certain California-based Redskins fan because she's impressed with his post count?

Again, you gotta act on more probable outcomes, not less probable outcomes.

[GibbsFactor]

But if the team is, say, 7 players away, would a move that could realistically rob that team of 4 of those players be delaying success as much as not drafting "the" QB?

History and data says that having a top 10 QB ensures your team's success as long as your QB is a top 10 QB. So no, using 3 picks on one position, the most vital position, does not handicap anything, especially with Free Agency.

You could have 21 pro bowlers but without that QB, it matters not.

[Skinsinparadise]

the team got a dozen new players from last year's draft, they can afford to package away a few picks for RG3 and still come away with more over the last two years than the franchise typically lands over a two year stretch. Add in the $40 million in cap room that can help to upgrade the offensive line/secondary/wherever and it's not the doom and gloom scenario some in this thread have painted it.

Playing off of this, if they trade away their first and 2nd this year they also will still have 6 picks in the draft. There should be plenty there to fill the roster. My only caveat is what if they can't get RG III? And they don't like lets Tannehill, Foles or whomever. Maybe hence the rumors of them signing Orton -- if we don't sign a free agent, and we don't get RG III, Plan C doesn't seem exciting.

[Redskins Ruckus]

History and data says that having a top 10 QB ensures your team's success as long as your QB is a top 10 QB. So no, using 3 picks on one position, the most vital position, does not handicap anything, especially with Free Agency.

You could have 21 pro bowlers but without that QB, it matters not.

Best post in the thread.

[Charlied72]

RGIII is not a "one player away move". It's an investment for the next decade. That's why I've consistently said that the Browns are stupid for rolling with Colt McCoy when they can ensure they'll have RGIII.

Getting RGIII, getting a franchise QB, a player who has the potential to not just be serviceable (and why, why, WHY is it okay to have a "serviceable" QB - nobody, ever, EVER says that a "serviceable WR" or "servicable RG" is okay - we have to have Pro Bowlers at that position, but it's okay for the QB to be serviceable), but dominant, gives us flexibility to do whatever the hell we want in the draft for the next decade.

It is really hard to **** up having a franchise QB. Incompetent franchises like the Cowboys and Chargers can win 8-10 games a year simply because they have top 10 QBs. Competent franchises like the Steelers and Giants have won 2 Super Bowls EACH since they drafted their QBs. The Pats won 3 with Brady. The Saints won one with Brees, have been to an NFCCG and some NFC divisional games. Aaron Rodgers already has one in 4 years as a starter. A healthy Stafford took the Lions from 6-10 to 10-6 with no run game and only one WR. The point is that when you have a chance, a reasonably good chance as opposed to a shot in the dark, at a true blue franchise QB, you take it. You can work around the consequences later. If you draft well you'll have depth and future young starters at other positions, just less of them. If you do your homework in FA, you'll still have a complete team.

Being conservative is not going to get us anywhere. We'll sign Manning, get 2 or 3 good years (and it's not a given they'll be elite years), and then what? We hope the guy we drafted to sit 3 years because we didn't want to deal with the QB problem is actually good? Guys sit all the time, and end up sucking. We draft another guy? That may not be as good? Yeah, when Manning is retired after most likely not having won us a SB, while we see RGIII tearing up the league, we'll be able to say "Hey, at least we had a few 10-6 seasons!". Yeah, no. I want to build a dynasty with a great QB at the helm, not shoot for a 3 year run of above-average and a subsequent fizzle-out.

I completely agree with your post. RG3 dose have a high ceiling but hes an investment. He will not be effective right away he will take time.