The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

This. I also agree completely with this plan. Of course, the question still remains unanswered: Is Peyton capable of returning to his previous state of good health? If he can't, this entire thing is moot.

and here's the short answer.... he's healthy enough to play. Which means he can take a hit. No one will prbably know about the numbness in his arm/hand until around March-April when the doctors expect for the swelling to have supposedly gone down enough to get his feeling back.

I think you question is the biggie though. I think we make a run at him. If we get him then we play the waiting game to see how he is by draft day. I'm sure the plan is to pick up offensive weapons anyway no matter who's at QB. If PM is doing well by late April then it's WR, then QB later in the draft. If PM is not doing much better then I could see the team trying to make something happen for RGIII, Luck, or whoever is available at #6 to start the season if need be.

All this is my oppinion... not any inside info.

Which was the same plan with McNabb and that set us back big time. I don't want go down that road again.

The reason the McNabb fiasco set us back was because it was a trade and Shanahan did not have a viable young QB in training (and no Beck was not that). The following year, MS still did not select a young QB, so there you have two years down the drain and still at zero in terms of the QB position.

Peyton Manning will very likely be cut by the Colts, unless they want to keep him and pay him 28 mil. He will not cost us any draft picks and will allow MS to draft a QB in the first three rounds. The only risk from this will be paying Peyton, and that is it. If MS drafts a Tannehill or another young QB, you will have an immediate answer to the position and a future answer to the position.

Well, by the sound of it, it doesn't sound like they really HAVE to negotiate with Manning. After all, it sounds like he would be happy with an incentive laced contract as opposed to a lot of guaranteed money up front. If this happens to be true, I'm sure any GM would jump on that deal in a heartbeat. It would be a no-brainer to sign PM then.

I'm not totally sure of this, so I defer to CC. But I believe that incentive laden deals, particularly if the incentives are reasonably attainable, are potentially more damaging to your salary cap than regular deals

I'm just not interested in drafting a 28 year old to be our "qb of the future". That is where the Weinke comparison comes in. A ton of picks for Luck >>>>>>>>> one pick on Weedon.

I totally understand, and I'm of the opinion that I would not want the team to toss out 4 draft picks plus from the first two rounds of this year and next just to get a QB they really don't know how well he will do in the NFL. On top of that even if I use my common sense and say he's got talent I don't see it making a whole mess of difference if the coaching staff is going to expect him to sit in the pocket to deliver the ball. To me ...

Mobile QB means rolling him out more or more shot gun situations so he can run if need be. Beck being the more mobile QB was made to sit in the pocket more often then Grossman. It really didn't make much sense. So if the team is not going to use the mobility then don't draft him. Save your picks and get more weapons to put with some other QB better suited for the pocket passing role.

So what would you guys rather have:
QB Robert Griffin III
RB Roy Helu
RB Evan Royster
WR Leonard Hankerson
WR Jabar Gaffney
WR FA WR
TE Fred Davis
TE Chris Cooley

or

QB Peyton Manning
QB Ryan "Clark Kent" Tannehill
RB Roy Helu
RB Evan Royster
WR Justin Blackmon
WR Leonard Hankerson
WR Jabar Gaffney
WR FA WR
TE Fred Davis
TE Chris Cooley

I'll take scenario #2, but honestly I don't think you will be able to get Blackmon #1, and I don't think if we could we would be able to get Tannehill also. Both I feel will be taken in the 1st round. I could be wrong. I know Miami is supposed to be up for Flynn and even if they get him I could see them still taking Tannehill as a back up for their 1st round pick.

I'm not totally sure of this, so I defer to CC. But I believe that incentive laden deals, particularly if the incentives are reasonably attainable, are potentially more damaging to your salary cap than regular deals

Ya I'm not sure if the rules have changed with the new CBA, but in the past any incentive that was "likely to be earned" counted against the cap right away. So incentives wouldn't help the cap situation too much.

They could use "unlikely to be earned" incentives. These only count on the cap if/when they are achieved. But if they are "unlikely" to be reached then Peyton might not want them in the first place.

Of course the ultimate "incentive" is to give Peyton very little guaranteed money up front, but then give him huge salaries every year. So basically if Peyton is still playing he will continue to earn these huge salaries every year. Once we have to trade/cut him it wouldn't hurt our cap at all since salary is not guaranteed.

I'll take scenario #2, but honestly I don't think you will be able to get Blackmon #1, and I don't think if we could we would be able to get Tannehill also. Both I feel will be taken in the 1st round. I could be wrong. I know Miami is supposed to be up for Flynn and even if they get him I could see them still taking Tannehill as a back up for their 1st round pick.

So what. There will be other WRs available who will be just as good or better than Blackmon. WRs can be gotten anywhere. I too like Scenario #2 even if you replace Manning with Flynn or Orton and replace Blackmon with Jeffery or Floyd. Still beats #1.

I like RGIII, but he's not a lock. No One is.

Lets get an incentive laden deal that offers a big pay day to Weeden if he can find a way to become 5 or 6 years younger.

So what. There will be other WRs available who will be just as good or better than Blackmon. WRs can be gotten anywhere. I too like Scenario #2 even if you replace Manning with Flynn or Orton and replace Blackmon with Jeffery or Floyd. Still beats #1.

I like RGIII, but he's not a lock. No One is.

Franchise QB trumps all other needs. RG3 > Tannehill. Can get WR's and any other position in free agency...

Option #2 is not a bad one though...I just prefer 10+ years of RG3 over the Manning/Tannehill combo.

Lets get an incentive laden deal that offers a big pay day to Weeden if he can find a way to become 5 or 6 years younger.

:D Unlikely incentive, I like it.