Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by TexSkins

So if we sign Peyton before the draft, do we draft RGIII if he falls to us? I say yes since it would solidify or QB situation for the next decade.

That would be weird, though. Because those two are completely different players, you'd literally have to start from scratch in terms of building your offense when RG3 takes over. I'd still like it to happen (just because it opens up so much for us), but if RG3 falls to us (which I don't see happening), I'd rather trade out of 1.6 and acquire more picks.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

This is probably the best case scenario...although RG3 at #6 could also land us many suitors in a trade (Miami, Cleveland, Seattle, etc., etc.).

i agree with doing a trade down in that scenario. RGIII and manning are two completely different types of quarterback. I know this may seem like a stupid statement, but i can't see RGIII really benefiting much from sitting behind manning for 2 or 3 years. it could even stunt his development. i think if we decided to go with manning, our primary strategy should be to surround him with as much talent as possibe. that means not using high picks on another QB.

[TexSkins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

This is probably the best case scenario...although RG3 at #6 could also land us many suitors in a trade (Miami, Cleveland, Seattle, etc., etc.).

Hopefully the Browns take Blackmon and no one wants to give up a bunch of picks for RG. I'm just tired of backup Qb's under center. If we get Peyton and RG isn't available we must trade back and fill some holes.

[TexSkins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

i agree with doing a trade down in that scenario. RGIII and manning are two completely different types of quarterback. I know this may seem like a stupid statement, but i can't see RGIII really benefiting much from sitting behind manning for 2 or 3 years. it could even stunt his development. i think if we decided to go with manning, our primary strategy should be to surround him with as much talent as possibe. that means not using high picks on another QB.

That's if Peyton lasts 2-3 years

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by TexSkins

That's if Peyton lasts 2-3 years

If Peyton comes back, it will be because he thinks he can play 2-3 more years. If we signed him, it would also be because we think he can play 2-3 more years.

[skinsguy]

Lord have mercy! Now people are wanting to write about how Manning should go to the Eagles???? It's gonna be a LONG month until free agency...lol!

A recovering Peyton Manning is still a better option than Michael Vick for Philadelphia Eagles | lehighvalleylive.com

[TexSkins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If Peyton comes back, it will be because he thinks he can play 2-3 more years. If we signed him, it would also be because we think he can play 2-3 more years.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a chip on your shoulder can cause irrational decisions.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by TexSkins

Not necessarily. Sometimes a chip on your shoulder can cause irrational decisions.

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.

[TexSkins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

Well said. I strongly believe that Peyton won't come back unless he knows he can play like he has done in the past.

I like Tannehill for the future but I am an aTm fan.

[NC_Skins]

Has RG3 really caught Luck?

*Despite what you may be hearing, there is no dramatic narrowing of the gap between Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III.

RG3 has the catchy nickname and the flashy game, but Luck remains No. 1 by a large margin, Bernstein writes.

A very good point made here.

"If the Rams ask for too much compensation for their second-overall pick, teams can simply call up Vikings general manager Rick Spielman and negotiate for a more fair price to get their guy."

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by dean518

i would prefer PM if we have chance to get him , not racial discrimination , i really do not expect a black QB to lead a nfl team go further , or i can not wait for more 2 or 3 years if draft RG3 , and even do not know if it's a right choice . If PM to our team , i would very happy to collect his Redskins jersey .

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

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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

Brilliant

[REDSKINS4ever]

I've seen video clips of Tannehill. He's very good. He has good size, a strong arm, and he can scramble very well. He has a quick release. His game is very effective and in time he would benefit any NFL offense. But he's a project at best. I see him getting drafted late in the first round at the earliest. In the case that the Redskin sign Peyton Manning, and I don't think Allen and Shanahan will, then Tannehill being drafted would make sense. But everyone isn't Tom Brady. Meaning if success is gained in today's NFL, then you have to draft your QB in the first round, and that means sidestepping Manning and drafting RG3.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

I've seen video clips of Tannehill. He's very good. He has good size, a strong arm, and he can scramble very well. He has a quick release. His game is very effective and in time he would benefit any NFL offense. But he's a project at best. I see him getting drafted late in the first round at the earliest. In the case that the Redskin sign Peyton Manning, and I don't think Allen and Shanahan will, then Tannehill being drafted would make sense. But everyone isn't Tom Brady. Meaning if success is gained in today's NFL, then you have to draft your QB in the first round, and that means sidestepping Manning and drafting RG3.

I don't see how we could not have a Favre/Rodgers situation where we draft a QB late in the first round and have him sit in the bench and learn from a legend. I have no basis to compare Tannehill as a prospect vs. Rodgers as a prospect, nor am I saying that Tannehill is the same prospect as Rodgers was coming out. However, I don't see anything wrong with growing our own QB and still get a good (possibly great) FA like Manning.

[TexSkins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I don't see how we could not have a Favre/Rodgers situation where we draft a QB late in the first round and have him sit in the bench and learn from a legend. I have no basis to compare Tannehill as a prospect vs. Rodgers as a prospect, nor am I saying that Tannehill is the same prospect as Rodgers was coming out. However, I don't see anything wrong with growing our own QB and still get a good (possibly great) FA like Manning.

It would be nice to have a young QB learning from Manning. I think they need to have 3 QBS on the active roster this year. Manning, Grossman (ugh), Rookie