QB Apocalypse: The Seventh Sign

Dont tell me what questions 2 and 3 are.

Just tell me if question 1 involves a dirty quarterback trent dilfer endlessly gushed about coming out of college (that we were rumored to want) and a famous 1960s singer with mafia ties.


He really annoys me.

I don't like dilfer either

If Jim Irsay is a man who speaks the truth,


LOL.



I think they ALL lie worse than politicians. In fact, his back and forth with Peyton this whole time is to make himself look good when he cuts Manning, but the reality of it is, he doesn't want to pay Peyton. Hell, remember before the CBA and he kept using that "OOoo...I'm going to make Peyton the highest paid player" but kept stalling and using the future CBA as an excuse. Bullshit. It's always about the money with them. Always will be.

well i am growing impatient.... i think question 2 may have to do with what the Bears do with Cutler and question 3 has to do with what the cowboys do with romo.

Question 3, clearly states go back to question 1.

Welp, no need to talk about my favorite kind of pie I guess. :laughing-

You're gonna do well here.

If we can't sign PM for a low salary, then yes, I do think it diverts us because of the multitude of needs that the Redskins have. There is a need for WRs, maybe a TE, a safety, an offensive lineman (or two), re-signing Fletcher, and probably a kick return specialist. I would hate to see money spent on PM that could otherwise be used for any of those purposes. Let's not drag out the rebuilding any longer than necessary by spending high on a high risk veteran QB. Just bad business IMHO.

If I am not mistaken, money-wise, McNabb didn't set us back much. What set us back was using picks to get him and not having a young QB to groom. That said, I don't think we should break the bank for Manning. Although, I wonder how much bargaining power will he have. I mean, while Brees wasn't at the level of Manning when he became a FA (and had had a monster year in SD), his potential health risk led to him only having New Orleans and Miami as possible suitors.

The one thing everyone says on TV is you have to let PM run his system, if that's true then I think it's a bad idea. Why you ask because most of the team knows MS/KS's system. IMO it's easier to teach 1 guy than 22 guys. When PM leaves/retires do we go back to MS/KS's system or stay with PM's system.

I don't think he has to run his own system, but you do have to give him a lot of freedom and control within the offense. And the system would have to be tweaked to fit his style.

I don't think he has to run his own system, but you do have to give him a lot of freedom and control within the offense. And the system would have to be tweaked to fit his style.

That would be good, but how similar are our systems.

I don't think he has to run his own system, but you do have to give him a lot of freedom and control within the offense. And the system would have to be tweaked to fit his style.

I dont think it matters what the system is - peyton will learn it. you just have to let him audible. He changes almost every play at the line of scrimage and thas one of the keys to his success. and i think allowing that would be a HUGE challenge for control-freak kyle. (Then again, maybe kyle is only a control-freak because he's never had a QB he could trust to correctly and consistently read the defenses and adjust the play to one with the best chance of success)

i'd love to sign peyton and bring in garcon. pairing him up with atleast one target he's already familiar with would also be key. it takes a while for a QB and WRs to develop a rapport and have that "feel" for knowing what eachother will do in certain situations.

heck, if we brought in saturday, garcon, and peyton, AND kyle let peyton do his thing - we'd immdiately be a 12 win team.

I'm all about building for the long term, but acquiring these FREE AGENTS would allow us to WIN while we continue to develop younger talent for the future.