Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby
Call me crazy but I could get on board with the Manning idea. The way he prepares for the game, the way he sees the field, I honestly wouldn't have a problem giving him 3 years at the helm. I saw somebody say this in one of these qb threads we have here on the boards, but if we signed Manning (no trade), drafted Blackmon with our first, and took a guy like Tannehill or Foles with our second I'd be happy with that. I think Manning could give us adequate qb play or even more for about 3 seasons while the rookie learns. And in that scenario we don't trade picks to move up or anything like that. Sure we'd have to pay Manning but we all know we're willing to if it comes to that. The only potential problem is that Blackmon might not make it to #6, but moving up a couple spots to get him would probably be a lot easier than moving up to get RG3 or Luck. The coaches need to explore all options and I'd be satisfied if they chose this one.
|
The Manning idea is starting to grow on me but I see McNabb2 each time I think about Manning coming to the Skins.
As for Blackmon I'm all for that if we can pick up a decent QB in FA. You mention being able to move up to get him since he might not be available at #6..... personally if we could move up for Blackmon then we should be able to move up for RGIII. The way I see if I figure either the Rams or Vikes will take Blackmon at #2 or #3, but if we were to be able to move up to get him then RGIII should still be on the table as well. No matter what it will cost the same to move up to get either and to be honest I think if we were able to move up no matter who we had as a FA QB I'd still say take RGIII until he can take over for whoever the FA is. There is a bigger class of decent WR's entering the draft vs. QB's.