Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

By the way, for you fans who are against PM because he can't throw....

Polian adamantly denies reports of Manning's poor arm strength (http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/bears-talk/post/Polian-adamantly-denies-reports-of-Manni?blockID=648372&feedID=626)

Polian refuted comments made Wednesday by Indianapolis Star reporter Bob Kravitz on Tony Kornheiser’s radio show, calling them simply “untrue.” He went further, saying that he saw Manning throw on New Year’s Eve and Manning showed, "quick release, good zip, but it was capped at about 25 yards.”


Polian said Manning is showing progress and that “his range of motion between his right arm and his left arm are almost the same at this point."

First Don Cornelius, then Whitney Houston and now this? Damn, worst Black History Month ever.

Ain't that the truth.

I say draft up for RGIII.

but Peyton isnt the worst option lol
I think Peyton will be just find and propell whatever team he plays for.
If it wasnt for Newton boosting a guy like RGIIIs draft status we wouldnt be having this convo.

Yes, but the only one with a chip on their shoulder would be Manning. I am willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt with McNabb (I still think it was a terrible idea, but whatever). But our entire FO deserves to fired if they signed an unhealthy Manning or if MS is not able to fit his defense to a healthy Manning.

As it has been mentioned before, signing Manning will only cost us money. Regardless of whether we get Manning or not, the key will be for his FO to get their QB of the future. Either by trading up for RG3 or getting a Tannehill/Cousins/Osweiller/etc.

Truer words...

In the (longshot) case of signing Peyton and RGIII falling to 6 and we take him, it will be very interesting to see what kind of QB RGIII becomes under Manning's tutelage. Griifin has such superior physical ability by all accounts if he could learn to be the OC type QB Peyton is holy sh!t what a phenom!!

For the record, why don't you look at GTripp's breakdown of our cap space. People keep throwing these numbers around and thinking that we are going to have trouble figuring out what to do with all the cap space. Once we re-sign our own and our draft picks, that space turns into a much more pedestrian number.If you throw a ton of front loaded cap space at Peyton Manning, I think you are right that the $48 million figure can look a lot bigger than it really is. That $48 million can become $12 million really quickly and without guaranteed roster improvement. Look at how much the Redskins spent last year and what they got out of it.

But I do want to say this: Schneed is right when he says there are very limited ways to improve your team with available cap space. I believe the best use of the cap is to have as much available as possible for a day where you have so many critical veteran pieces to your team that you actually need to use that cap space to keep those guys together, but if you pay Peyton Manning mostly through 2012 and 2013 guaranteed roster bonuses, all that cap space spent to get Manning will still be there in 2014, and it limits the room to make bad signings just because you want to dispel the illusion that you are being cheap.

Marginal wins are almost impossible to buy in football with cash, whereas in baseball, you have pretty accurate estimates of a marginal win costing $4.8 million.

I buy your argument that Peyton is in decline, but I think if you strip out the Colts-offense related decline, Peyton's personal decline is much less steep, and you still have a pretty dominant player who is a better quarterback than Eli Manning and Michael Vick in the NFC East.

As for GTripp's breakdown, you probably don't realize it but you've stepped into my wheelhouse - salary cap analysis. GTripp's breakdown post is one I used to do for this site. He did it this year for whatever reason, I chose not to make an issue of it, but that doesn't mean I agree with the analysis. He's right in saying we need a portion of our cap space to resign our own players or replace them with other players. But I don't agree with the conclusion that there is only $15 million of flexibility. You may be able to assume same cap value when considering replacement cost of departing players, but that doesn't mean those replacements won't be talent upgrades.And there was no cap rollover in the analysis I posted.

It's a moot point for the 2012 season because the Redskins aren't even going to get close to spending to the cap unless they have like a $20 million roster bonus for Manning in the middle of the season. Anything else, and only a cap analysis of 2013 or 2014 could produce a meaningful barrier to new contracts.

I say draft up for RGIII.

but Peyton isnt the worst option lol
I think Peyton will be just find and propell whatever team he plays for.
If it wasnt for Newton boosting a guy like RGIIIs draft status we wouldnt be having this convo.

Can we have that option please. I don't care how you cut but there is a risk in either of the top two rookie QBs, and it will be a few years before we see a rookie come out and play like Cam Newton did this year. RGIII will not put up Cam Newton #s. It has been years since a rookie came out and played like Cam, it will be years till the next.

This is an interesting read regarding Steve Young's view of MS and how Peyton could thirve here.

Steve Young thinks Peyton Manning to the Redskins is a fit - DC Sports Bog - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/steve-young-thinks-peyton-manning-to-the-redskins-is-a-fit/2012/02/08/gIQAY0pNzQ_blog.html)

I for one want to see this team win. NOW! LOL

Manning is no more of an injury risk than any other QB. The neck isn't an issue, it's the nerves in his arm that are preventing him from being considered 100%. The neck has been fine since the fall.Correction on one point: Manning may not be any more of an injury risk because of his cervical fusion, but he's a 36+ year old NFL starting quarterback. That's a group that, in it's entirety, is two guys: Manning and Hasselbeck. All else equal, Manning is more of an injury risk than 30 other starting QBs based on his age alone.

I still think Manning is capable of throwing together back to back 16 start seasons, but I would not predict that he will.

If you throw a ton of front loaded cap space at Peyton Manning, I think you are right that the $48 million figure can look a lot bigger than it really is. That $48 million can become $12 million really quickly and without guaranteed roster improvement. Look at how much the Redskins spent last year and what they got out of it.

But I do want to say this: Schneed is right when he says there are very limited ways to improve your team with available cap space. I believe the best use of the cap is to have as much available as possible for a day where you have so many critical veteran pieces to your team that you actually need to use that cap space to keep those guys together, but if you pay Peyton Manning mostly through 2012 and 2013 guaranteed roster bonuses, all that cap space spent to get Manning will still be there in 2014, and it limits the room to make bad signings just because you want to dispel the illusion that you are being cheap.

Marginal wins are almost impossible to buy in football with cash, whereas in baseball, you have pretty accurate estimates of a marginal win costing $4.8 million.

I buy your argument that Peyton is in decline, but I think if you strip out the Colts-offense related decline, Peyton's personal decline is much less steep, and you still have a pretty dominant player who is a better quarterback than Eli Manning and Michael Vick in the NFC East.

Well, I certainly agree with you on re-signing your own being the smartest way to spend cap room. But I think there is plenty of good that can be done in the FA market. Just using last year's class of our own, the 2012 costs for the vet FAs we brought in (Cofield, Bowen, Atogwe, Wilson, Chester, Rocca) is right around 24 mil. Is that not a wise use of resources? Is there no way we can envision a repeat of that as a smart way to add to our depth? Or, we could probably sign a couple of guys like Ben Grubbs and Mario Manningham for about the same per year cost as Manning. Just dismissing the other uses of the cap space is not a fair way to look at the two sides of this.

And again, the rollovers mean even if we stayed below the cap, those become dollars we can spend in the future. So an argument centered around an implication that if we don't sign Manning or the dollars go to waste in some way is not really valid, imo.

The problem with arguing this is that it feels like debating arguments built around conflicting points:
A) that we should sign Manning because of the surety of how it will improve us. while at the same time dismissing the cap space argument because there's nothing you can do on the FA market that can really help the team.
B) that we shouldn't draft a QB because the odds are so against finding a star in the draft, while at the same time acting as if whatever else we would do with the draft picks is a sure bet to succeed.


Anyway, I probably won't be around the board much the next few days, so thanks for the convo guys.