QB Apocalypse: The Seventh Sign

[Jamaican'Skin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Long ago, in the storied historical archives of the Warpath, a young brave came on and said that he had approached the great warrior coach Joe Gibbs with a question. That question was so awesome that with reverence it is known only by its number. Question 3 may it forever soar amongst the eagles.

But what was Question 3? The world may never know.

More importantly, who is the Question 3 Idol?

[redskin29633]

If Jim Irsay is a man who speaks the truth, and its really NOT about the money, then there must be some kind of problem if the Colts let Manning walk. I've said before that risk tolerance is a part of the equation in Manning's return to football. Doctors are like regular people, their opinions vary. I suspect that is going to be the case (is the case) with PM's health, his ability to recover his passing skills, and his risk tolerance for another injury which could be debilitating. Perhaps Irsay just does not want to see PM go through all that as a Colt; perhaps he thinks its time for the Colts to move forward and not look back.

Against that backdrop, I just dont see how it is a good idea for Washington to give up a portion of the team's remaining salary cap space to bring in an aging, injured PM to play QB. Some seem to think we can get him for minimal salary with some incentive package attached. I really doubt that possibility. And even if it works, and PM earns a stack of incentive money, Redskins have still incurred the alternative costs. Money that could have been spent on WRs, safety, offensive linemen, retention of Fletcher at ILB, and a host of other needs.

The Manning plan is a bad one for the Redskins because it diverts us from the rebuilding effort already in motion! We should not stop mid-stream!

For once, I want the Redskins to be sensible, reasonable, measured, thoughtful, and SMART in their approach. Forget about Manning, go with the plan in motion. Stay the course; fans have endured two years of the process to rebuild the football team; keep moving forward with the good plan.

I know we need somebody to play QB; FA QBs are available; sign one. Draft a QB to develop, RGIII or Tannehill, or another of the Shanahans' choice. But dont revert to the pre-Shanahan days of frivolous, ill-advised FA signings. Stay strong and be smart; rebuild the football team the right way!

Why signing Kyle Orton would make sense for the Redskins - The Insider - The Washington Post

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by redskin29633

If Jim Irsay is a man who speaks the truth, and its really NOT about the money, then there must be some kind of problem if the Colts let Manning walk. I've said before that risk tolerance is a part of the equation in Manning's return to football. Doctors are like regular people, their opinions vary. I suspect that is going to be the case (is the case) with PM's health, his ability to recover his passing skills, and his risk tolerance for another injury which could be debilitating. Perhaps Irsay just does not want to see PM go through all that as a Colt; perhaps he thinks its time for the Colts to move forward and not look back.

Against that backdrop, I just dont see how it is a good idea for Washington to give up a portion of the team's remaining salary cap space to bring in an aging, injured PM to play QB. Some seem to think we can get him for minimal salary with some incentive package attached. I really doubt that possibility. And even if it works, and PM earns a stack of incentive money, Redskins have still incurred the alternative costs. Money that could have been spent on WRs, safety, offensive linemen, retention of Fletcher at ILB, and a host of other needs.

The Manning plan is a bad one for the Redskins because it diverts us from the rebuilding effort already in motion! We should not stop mid-stream!

For once, I want the Redskins to be sensible, reasonable, measured, thoughtful, and SMART in their approach. Forget about Manning, go with the plan in motion. Stay the course; fans have endured two years of the process to rebuild the football team; keep moving forward with the good plan.

I know we need somebody to play QB; FA QBs are available; sign one. Draft a QB to develop, RGIII or Tannehill, or another of the Shanahans' choice. But dont revert to the pre-Shanahan days of frivolous, ill-advised FA signings. Stay strong and be smart; rebuild the football team the right way!

Why signing Kyle Orton would make sense for the Redskins - The Insider - The Washington Post

Does it really divert us, though? We aren't giving away picks for players, we are giving money, which we have in abundance right now - and will have more of soon once we start cutting players. If anything, I could make the case that it only increases the likelihood of continuing our rebuild. If we invest a ton of money in PM, we are handcuffed into acquiring cheaper players through the draft due to limited FA funds. I think (without sources to back this up) we will draft a young QB in the second round and let him sit and learn. The rebuild is still on so don't worry too much.

[redskin29633]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

Does it really divert us, though? We aren't giving away picks for players, we are giving money, which we have in abundance right now - and will have more of soon once we start cutting players. If anything, I could make the case that it only increases the likelihood of continuing our rebuild. If we invest a ton of money in PM, we are handcuffed into acquiring cheaper players through the draft due to limited FA funds. I think (without sources to back this up) we will draft a young QB in the second round and let him sit and learn. The rebuild is still on so don't worry too much.

If we can't sign PM for a low salary, then yes, I do think it diverts us because of the multitude of needs that the Redskins have. There is a need for WRs, maybe a TE, a safety, an offensive lineman (or two), re-signing Fletcher, and probably a kick return specialist. I would hate to see money spent on PM that could otherwise be used for any of those purposes. Let's not drag out the rebuilding any longer than necessary by spending high on a high risk veteran QB. Just bad business IMHO.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by redskin29633

If we can't sign PM for a low salary, then yes, I do think it diverts us because of the multitude of needs that the Redskins have. There is a need for WRs, maybe a TE, a safety, an offensive lineman (or two), re-signing Fletcher, and probably a kick return specialist. I would hate to see money spent on PM that could otherwise be used for any of those purposes. Let's not drag out the rebuilding any longer than necessary by spending high on a high risk veteran QB. Just bad business IMHO.

If I am not mistaken, money-wise, McNabb didn't set us back much. What set us back was using picks to get him and not having a young QB to groom. That said, I don't think we should break the bank for Manning. Although, I wonder how much bargaining power will he have. I mean, while Brees wasn't at the level of Manning when he became a FA (and had had a monster year in SD), his potential health risk led to him only having New Orleans and Miami as possible suitors.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by redskin29633

If Jim Irsay is a man who speaks the truth,

LOL.



I think they ALL lie worse than politicians. In fact, his back and forth with Peyton this whole time is to make himself look good when he cuts Manning, but the reality of it is, he doesn't want to pay Peyton. Hell, remember before the CBA and he kept using that "OOoo...I'm going to make Peyton the highest paid player" but kept stalling and using the future CBA as an excuse. Bullshit. It's always about the money with them. Always will be.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by redskin29633

If Jim Irsay is a man who speaks the truth, and its really NOT about the money, then there must be some kind of problem if the Colts let Manning walk. I've said before that risk tolerance is a part of the equation in Manning's return to football. Doctors are like regular people, their opinions vary. I suspect that is going to be the case (is the case) with PM's health, his ability to recover his passing skills, and his risk tolerance for another injury which could be debilitating. Perhaps Irsay just does not want to see PM go through all that as a Colt; perhaps he thinks its time for the Colts to move forward and not look back.

Against that backdrop, I just dont see how it is a good idea for Washington to give up a portion of the team's remaining salary cap space to bring in an aging, injured PM to play QB. Some seem to think we can get him for minimal salary with some incentive package attached. I really doubt that possibility. And even if it works, and PM earns a stack of incentive money, Redskins have still incurred the alternative costs. Money that could have been spent on WRs, safety, offensive linemen, retention of Fletcher at ILB, and a host of other needs.

The Manning plan is a bad one for the Redskins because it diverts us from the rebuilding effort already in motion! We should not stop mid-stream!

For once, I want the Redskins to be sensible, reasonable, measured, thoughtful, and SMART in their approach. Forget about Manning, go with the plan in motion. Stay the course; fans have endured two years of the process to rebuild the football team; keep moving forward with the good plan.

I know we need somebody to play QB; FA QBs are available; sign one. Draft a QB to develop, RGIII or Tannehill, or another of the Shanahans' choice. But dont revert to the pre-Shanahan days of frivolous, ill-advised FA signings. Stay strong and be smart; rebuild the football team the right way!

Why signing Kyle Orton would make sense for the Redskins - The Insider - The Washington Post

#1-Ok, you say the team needs to .... stay the course? how do you not know that the course is to pick up PM?

#2- You make a huge arguement as to why the team should not take a Vet QB, and elude to the fact that the course is drafting a young QB.

#3- Then you mention signing Orton. Orton? Not that I'm wanting it but we might as well stick with Grossman since the production level would not be that much better.

Personally I'd sign PM. He will be a Free Agent just like Orton. I'd have an option for the Skins added to the contract that if PM is not healthy and ready to play in the 1st game then the team can cut him with out the team owing him a ton of money. Plus whoever is Rookie would get playing time until PM is 100% ready which could mean the developement your looking for. Plus depending on PM's health come the first game maybe the Rookie starts the season until PM is ready.

[redskin29633]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

#1-Ok, you say the team needs to .... stay the course? how do you not know that the course is to pick up PM?

#2- You make a huge arguement as to why the team should not take a Vet QB, and elude to the fact that the course is drafting a young QB.

#3- Then you mention signing Orton. Orton? Not that I'm wanting it but we might as well stick with Grossman since the production level would not be that much better.

#1 My argument/hope is that the "course" is to AVOID PM at all costs.
#2 I feel that Redskins MUST take a vet FA QB; we just need to avoid PM and associated risk.
#3 I dont mention signing Orton; the Washington Post made that argument. The Washington Examiner (John Keim) has written a similar piece on Orton.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Dont tell me what questions 2 and 3 are.

Just tell me if question 1 involves a dirty quarterback trent dilfer endlessly gushed about coming out of college (that we were rumored to want) and a famous 1960s singer with mafia ties.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Dont tell me what questions 2 and 3 are.

Just tell me if question 1 involves a dirty quarterback trent dilfer endlessly gushed about coming out of college (that we were rumored to want) and a famous 1960s singer with mafia ties.

He really annoys me.

[NYCskinfan82]

The one thing everyone says on TV is you have to let PM run his system, if that's true then I think it's a bad idea. Why you ask because most of the team knows MS/KS's system. IMO it's easier to teach 1 guy than 22 guys. When PM leaves/retires do we go back to MS/KS's system or stay with PM's system.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

The one thing everyone says on TV is you have to let PM run his system, if that's true then I think it's a bad idea. Why you ask because most of the team knows MS/KS's system. IMO it's easier to teach 1 guy than 22 guys. When PM leaves/retires do we go back to MS/KS's system or stay with PM's system.

I don't think he has to run his own system, but you do have to give him a lot of freedom and control within the offense. And the system would have to be tweaked to fit his style.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't think he has to run his own system, but you do have to give him a lot of freedom and control within the offense. And the system would have to be tweaked to fit his style.

That would be good, but how similar are our systems.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't think he has to run his own system, but you do have to give him a lot of freedom and control within the offense. And the system would have to be tweaked to fit his style.

I dont think it matters what the system is - peyton will learn it. you just have to let him audible. He changes almost every play at the line of scrimage and thas one of the keys to his success. and i think allowing that would be a HUGE challenge for control-freak kyle. (Then again, maybe kyle is only a control-freak because he's never had a QB he could trust to correctly and consistently read the defenses and adjust the play to one with the best chance of success)

i'd love to sign peyton and bring in garcon. pairing him up with atleast one target he's already familiar with would also be key. it takes a while for a QB and WRs to develop a rapport and have that "feel" for knowing what eachother will do in certain situations.

heck, if we brought in saturday, garcon, and peyton, AND kyle let peyton do his thing - we'd immdiately be a 12 win team.

I'm all about building for the long term, but acquiring these FREE AGENTS would allow us to WIN while we continue to develop younger talent for the future.

[skinsfaninok]

I don't like dilfer either