Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
All of the writers quoted in the PFT article speak from a flawed either/or perspective. Their argument is that we should be developing our own QB rather than signing Manning as if only one of those moves is an option.
It seems clear to me that we could do both: add Manning AND add a home-developed QB for the future. If I am correct then all of the arguments quoted by PFT are meaningless.
|
What would the specifics be? Sign Peyton Manning in free agency and draft Ryan Tannehill or Nick Foles in the 2nd round of the draft and develop whichever one we pick? This way, the Redskins keep their picks instead of trading up for RG3.
The other option would be to let Peyton Manning be, sign a veteran free agent QB to take over for Grossman or even keep Rex, and then use whatever ammunition we have to trade up and select RG3 2nd overall.
I like the second option the best. The only thing is maybe sacrificing high draft choices in the move to get RG3. But unlike Manning, RG3 has played football in the past year, is 14 years younger than Manning, and has his best years ahead of him. Peyton Manning on the other hand while still capable of playing at a high enough level, has been inactive since the 2010 playoffs, has had surgery on his neck, and although he's been cleared by doctors to play, is only a short term solution at QB, and is in the twilight of his career.
That said, RG3 is the better option than Manning.