Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

They should trade back if they're targeting a WR. Floyd or Jeffery could be had later. The more picks the better.

There is a select few of us who are on page with you but the majority would love to throw caution to the wind and just go get what they want at any cost with out any knowledge as to if the possibility will even work out. But they'd be happy and thats all that should matter.

Peyton Manning risks make one suitor seem increasingly likely - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/peyton-manning-risks-make-one-suitor-seem-increasingly-likely/2012/02/16/gIQAP1WrHR_story.html)

Wow. just wow. Do these writers really understand who runs the Redskins anymore? I expect this kind of piece from a national writer but not from a local.

Well, they are right about one thing. The dude is bright, animated, well spoken and quite entertaining. With his Football acumen, he would be a real asset to ESPN.........

Isn't there a doctor here? Because from what I've heard this latest news is really being blown out of proportion. More surgery? Yeah probably but that could be a minor procedures many years down the road. Bone spurs? Not uncommon and not always such a big deal

Yeah, NFL players get this procedure all the time and are able to return to football with out inident. A major example is Montana, but for those who don't want PM to interfere with their team selecting RGIII, this is an anomaly and only PM is and or has been subjected to these issue's. Lets not take him. (sarcasm)

Mark Rypien's take:

Mark Rypien on Peyton Manning to the Redskins - DC Sports Bog - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/mark-rypien-on-peyton-manning-to-the-redskins/2012/02/15/gIQAGMK1FR_blog.html)

Basically stating the reasons why I want Manning in a Redskins uni.

A) March 24th, 2011.

B) Emory, but I took some time off to get my PhD in French Literature at Oxford. I really wanted to do something for me. Anyway after that I did my residency at John Hopkins.

C) Depends on how hot the rookie QB. RGIII is a day 1 starter. Everyone else behind him is a group of guys that shouldn't be starting before week 8 at the very least.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to a triple bypass procedure, plus I got blood all over my keyboard.

Weren't you one of the ones who said the same thing when I suggested we get Andy Dalton? yeah, I'm pretty sure you were. Just pointing out how wrong you an be. ;)

[/B]

Giving up a 3rd rounder for someone that wasn't even drafted and hasn't done much outside of pre season doesn't make much sense to me. Clausen doesn't even belong in the NFL. These two could be worse than Rex and Beck.

it's about future potential with Hoyer really. He's extremely well regarded by many NFL teams perhaps more so than Flynn in some cases.

Think of Clausen as Clemens from last year. Low risk option.

By arm talent I mean the ability to drive the ball with velocity on the litmus test NFL throws: deep comebacks, deep dig, bang 8 (skinny post), deep out.
Tannehill can make all these throws with better velocity then most in this draft class save for maybe Foles and Osweiler.
To my eye Tannehill can make these throws with ease while on the move where as Foles and Weedens accuracy/velocity is affected/diminished with movement.

You lost me a little here.
Why do you have Tannehill ranked higher then those guys?
Also, something must have been lost in the translation because I don't rate Tannehill as because he's raw.
Rather its his rawness that prevents him from have a higher grade for me.Re: rawness, that is what I gathered from you (that you were downgrading him on it), but I feel like a lot of others have concluded that because he can get so much better than he is, his flaws aren't significant issues. Whereas evaluations seem to be far more terminal on Foles, Cousins, and Moore. It's almost like we've reached a point where college productivity is being held against players: Tannehill is getting pushed up somewhat because he lacks it. That, to me, is backwards.

With Weeden, I don't think he can ever overcome his age, so I'm not rating him like I believe he can. I think you can take Weeden, plug him into your system, enjoy having a strong armed quarterback in the Joe Flacco mold, and just deal with the fact that he's going to be a two read guy in the pros. But those guys are a dime a dozen. I bumped Weeden up to the fourth round because guys below that level don't typically have great ball velocity (Weinke didn't). I like Brock Osweiler, but Tannehill was the better college player of the two. Ergo, he's the better pro prospect, even though he's giving tools up in the comparison.

It seems to me that there are only a couple of QBs in this class that don't throw on the move well, but that seems to be a primary positive that follows Tannehill, because he played wide receiver for years. He's a much better athlete than Foles, but I just feel like if evaluators came out and said "that is why I believe the older prospect (Tannehill) has more upside," that it wouldn't fly against criticism. They are all gifted players physically.

Mostly, I just can't rectify "having the physical tools to be a first round pick" with being the consensus third best guy in the class. It sure seems like someone missed a step somewhere.

McShay speculates that it would take a 1st, 2nd, and 4th for the Redskins to move up to #2.

Pass

So could we compare some of the interest in Hoyer by NFL clubs to Schuab when he was traded out of ATL. Highly regarded but never had a chance to play.