The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Grossman CANNOT be our backup QB next year. I'd rather sign a FA in the offseason to be a backup over keeping Grossman. We definitely need a QB who is going to start week 1 next year.

Trade value chart (TVC) is totally different being that there is a salary cap for rookies now. There is less financial risk so teams may even require more compensation to move up than what is reflected in the TVC.

Most teams that win the Superbowl DO NOT have Peyton Manning as their quarterback. Good enough is, in fact, good enough. There are several who would probably fit the bill in the draft. My preferrence is RGIII... however, we can do well with Barkley or Landry, as well.

It would cost significant portions of 2 drafts to get Luck... even if the Colts were to part with him. We cannot afford that. We need the players that those picks represent. Period.

Countertrey wrote:Most teams that win the Superbowl DO NOT have Peyton Manning as their quarterback. Good enough is, in fact, good enough. There are several who would probably fit the bill in the draft. My preferrence is RGIII... however, we can do well with Barkley or Landry, as well.

It would cost significant portions of 2 drafts to get Luck... even if the Colts were to part with him. We cannot afford that. We need the players that those picks represent. Period.

+1

Countertrey wrote:Most teams that win the Superbowl DO NOT have Peyton Manning as their quarterback. Good enough is, in fact, good enough. There are several who would probably fit the bill in the draft. My preferrence is RGIII... however, we can do well with Barkley or Landry, as well.

It would cost significant portions of 2 drafts to get Luck... even if the Colts were to part with him. We cannot afford that. We need the players that those picks represent. Period.

I agree that Barkley or Jones would be good enough, not sure about RGIII. As for your first statement, though, are you saying that most teams win without elite qbs? Because that certainly isn't the case. Brady, Rodgers, and Brees are at the Manning level in my opinion.

frankcal20 wrote:Trade value chart (TVC) is totally different being that there is a salary cap for rookies now. There is less financial risk so teams may even require more compensation to move up than what is reflected in the TVC.

Very good point. Which means Shanny and Allen will most likely not trade up.

Anybody think we should try to trade for Peyton Manning if in fact the Colts draft Luck?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Most teams that win the Superbowl DO NOT have Peyton Manning as their quarterback. Good enough is, in fact, good enough. There are several who would probably fit the bill in the draft. My preferrence is RGIII... however, we can do well with Barkley or Landry, as well.

It would cost significant portions of 2 drafts to get Luck... even if the Colts were to part with him. We cannot afford that. We need the players that those picks represent. Period.

I agree that Barkley or Jones would be good enough, not sure about RGIII. As for your first statement, though, are you saying that most teams win without elite qbs? Because that certainly isn't the case. Brady, Rodgers, and Brees are at the Manning level in my opinion.

Earl Morrall, Bob Griese, Ken Stabler, Jim Plunkett, Joe Theisman, Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, Phil Simms, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Eli Manning. This list includes only quarterbacks who WON the Superbowl... there are plenty of others who, but for a circumstance, here or there, could have won as well. Elite? No. Good enough? Yes. An exceptional quarterback also does not guarantee a championship, either (see Dan Marino)

We are likely to get a quarterback in this draft who will be GOOD ENOUGH.

GoSkins wrote:Anybody think we should try to trade for Peyton Manning if in fact the Colts draft Luck?

Do you think Peyton Manning, who basically ran the Colt's offense himself at the line for years, would work well with Kyle, a rigid and fairly inexperienced OC who is there due to nepotism? I think it'd be a mess.

What exactly would we need to trade to get Peyton? If it included a first-rounder, wouldn't that 1st be better used on drafting a QB in a pretty deep QB class?

If Peyton is healthy, there's nothing stopping the Colts from drafting him anyway and letting him learn the offense under Peyton for a year before they start him and trade Manning.

It's tempting, but I'd pass.

Hooligan wrote:

GoSkins wrote:Anybody think we should try to trade for Peyton Manning if in fact the Colts draft Luck?

Do you think Peyton Manning, who basically ran the Colt's offense himself at the line for years, would work well with Kyle, a rigid and fairly inexperienced OC who is there due to nepotism? I think it'd be a mess.

What exactly would we need to trade to get Peyton? If it included a first-rounder, wouldn't that 1st be better used on drafting a QB in a pretty deep QB class?

If Peyton is healthy, there's nothing stopping the Colts from drafting him anyway and letting him learn the offense under Peyton for a year before they start him and trade Manning.

It's tempting, but I'd pass.

I don't see it as a viable option. I don't see Kyle as being secure enough to permit Manning the kind of latitude that he would need... this is the reason the McNabb experiment was doomed... even before it became evident that McNabb wasn't up to it.

GoSkins wrote:Anybody think we should try to trade for Peyton Manning if in fact the Colts draft Luck?

Absolutely. I don't see this happening thanks to the massive egos of the Shanahans. But I'd love to have Manning on this team over any of the other rookie QBs coming out of the draft. Who wouldn't?

StorminMormon86 wrote:

GoSkins wrote:Anybody think we should try to trade for Peyton Manning if in fact the Colts draft Luck?

Absolutely. I don't see this happening thanks to the massive egos of the Shanahans. But I'd love to have Manning on this team over any of the other rookie QBs coming out of the draft. Who wouldn't?

Manning will be 36 next season and is coming off of 3 procedures on his neck. He isn't any sort of long-term option. We need a young qb that we can groom to be here for long haul.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Manning will be 36 next season and is coming off of 3 procedures on his neck. He isn't any sort of long-term option. We need a young qb that we can groom to be here for long haul.

We do need a young QB, but Manning still represents the potential of a "short term" answer (1-3 years if lucky). We could theoretically draft a young QB (not NFL ready) to sit and learn from Manning. Again this is all hypothetical, I don't see Manning coming here.

I would be willing to give up a #1 in 2013 for Peyton and use our #1 in 2012 on a QB. Most of you think we need to get rid of both Grossman and Beck and get 2 QBs. This would be an ideal situation if we could pull it off.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

GoSkins wrote:Anybody think we should try to trade for Peyton Manning if in fact the Colts draft Luck?

Absolutely. I don't see this happening thanks to the massive egos of the Shanahans. But I'd love to have Manning on this team over any of the other rookie QBs coming out of the draft. Who wouldn't?

I would take any of the top four rookies over Manning.

GoSkins wrote:I would be willing to give up a #1 in 2013 for Peyton and use our #1 in 2012 on a QB. Most of you think we need to get rid of both Grossman and Beck and get 2 QBs. This would be an ideal situation if we could pull it off.

^^ Borders on "completely over the edge".




ummm...

no.

Irn-Bru wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

GoSkins wrote:Anybody think we should try to trade for Peyton Manning if in fact the Colts draft Luck?

Absolutely. I don't see this happening thanks to the massive egos of the Shanahans. But I'd love to have Manning on this team over any of the other rookie QBs coming out of the draft. Who wouldn't?

I would take any of the top four rookies over Manning.

+1 And they wouldn't cost additional picks.

If the Colts trade Manning they will ask for more than one pick, this team needs all the picks it can get over the next few years.

Mike & Bruce will draft a QB with our first pick

We will have a FA QB here next year

Grossman may be here to help but as soon as possible the rookie will take over as back-up QB


we need to have another draft like the last one and hopefully find a few free agents that can help as well

QB is the priority for both our first pick and a free agent

We also need to keep adding linemen - especially on offense

we need to try and get as many draft picks as we can in these next 2 drafts


Mike & Bruce will NOT be here if they don't draft a good QB

A good QB will be 'good enough' to ensure we're in the playoffs, if we have all the other pieces in place

I still like the idea of trading for a young QB that's in the league (if there's one they like) and then drafting someone later. If there is a FA out there they like, that also solves the issue. I'm not the biggest fan of starting a rookie but there are guys who have done it and have been successful. More times than most, the guys who sit for a year or so end up handling the pressure better than rookies.

1niksder wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

GoSkins wrote:Anybody think we should try to trade for Peyton Manning if in fact the Colts draft Luck?

Absolutely. I don't see this happening thanks to the massive egos of the Shanahans. But I'd love to have Manning on this team over any of the other rookie QBs coming out of the draft. Who wouldn't?

I would take any of the top four rookies over Manning.

+1 And they wouldn't cost additional picks.

If the Colts trade Manning they will ask for more than one pick, this team needs all the picks it can get over the next few years.

I agree with 1niksder on this. My football instincts tell me that any of the Top 5 Rookie QBs would be preferable than trading any picks.

The only thing that begs the question is just how valuable a Top QB like Manning can be. They went a decade of 10+ wins per year with him. They haven't won a game without him. No, I'm still not in favor of mortgaging the future for him, but I'm sure that some teams are thinking about it if Luck is what people say he is. If they believe that he's a Manning-like talent who can take an average team to the playoffs for 10 years, they will get offers. Remember, the Falcons gave away a helluva lot just for Julio Jones.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:Manning will be 36 next season and is coming off of 3 procedures on his neck. He isn't any sort of long-term option. We need a young qb that we can groom to be here for long haul.

We do need a young QB, but Manning still represents the potential of a "short term" answer (1-3 years if lucky). We could theoretically draft a young QB (not NFL ready) to sit and learn from Manning. Again this is all hypothetical, I don't see Manning coming here.

Short Term?????? What about this team makes you think we need any sort of short term solution??? Are you that crazy in you think we only need a QB to make us a SB contender???? And how do you think we will acquire Peyton Manning -- magically??? It will cost us draft picks -- which would further stunt the progress of this team.

And you think that Peyton Manning is going to go anywhere that considers him a short term solution??? The only reason he would leave would be to go to a franchise that is willing to invest in him and sign him to an astronomical 5 year (or longer) contract. And if he were going to go to a place that was grooming a young QB while he started, he would stay put in Indy. Besides, Peyton Manning is not about to mentor a young QB -- how did Painter do in his absence???

I swear. WTF???


Go halfway down the page:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/722 ... bag-league

GoSkins wrote:I would be willing to give up a #1 in 2013 for Peyton and use our #1 in 2012 on a QB. Most of you think we need to get rid of both Grossman and Beck and get 2 QBs. This would be an ideal situation if we could pull it off.

Ok Vinny.

That would be ideal -- for Indy....

This post boarders on complete insanity. I am speechless.

Now seeing that Peyton Manning was basically the OC of the Colts, I doubt that he'd want to have Kyle chirping in his ear. Ever.

frankcal20 wrote:I still like the idea of trading for a young QB that's in the league (if there's one they like)

I would point out that they "like" both Beck and Grossman...

and then drafting someone later. If there is a FA out there they like, that also solves the issue. I'm not the biggest fan of starting a rookie but there are guys who have done it and have been successful. More times than most, the guys who sit for a year or so end up handling the pressure better than rookies.

I don't have any problem with continuing to use a journeyman until the rook is up to taking the field... as long as it's a competent journeyman who is capable of managing a game and recognizing that his reciever is triple covered.

I am not an expert on college players, and my research is 80% YouTube videos and 20% articles I've read . . . but with all of that said, my own opinion is that we should draft Barkley.

I don't think we should trade to get Luck. The reality is that he's going to be very expensive if the Skins want him. The fit with the Colts is too perfect for them not to draft him, meaning they will have a much higher price for prospective traders, and besides that we might be bidding against other teams for the pick.

I think RGIII is an exciting player to watch, but seeing the throws Barkley made had me drooling. I can't remember the last Redskins QB that could make throws like that with any consistency.