Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=mooby;883031]This. I also agree completely with this plan. Of course, the question still remains unanswered: Is Peyton capable of returning to his previous state of good health? If he can't, this entire thing is moot.[/quote]

and here's the short answer.... he's healthy enough to play. Which means he can take a hit. No one will prbably know about the numbness in his arm/hand until around March-April when the doctors expect for the swelling to have supposedly gone down enough to get his feeling back.

I think you question is the biggie though. I think we make a run at him. If we get him then we play the waiting game to see how he is by draft day. I'm sure the plan is to pick up offensive weapons anyway no matter who's at QB. If PM is doing well by late April then it's WR, then QB later in the draft. If PM is not doing much better then I could see the team trying to make something happen for RGIII, Luck, or whoever is available at #6 to start the season if need be.

All this is my oppinion... not any inside info.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=mredskins;883037]Which was the same plan with McNabb and that set us back big time. I don't want go down that road again.[/quote]

The reason the McNabb fiasco set us back was because it was a trade and Shanahan did not have a viable young QB in training (and no Beck was not that). The following year, MS still did not select a young QB, so there you have two years down the drain and still at zero in terms of the QB position.

Peyton Manning will very likely be cut by the Colts, unless they want to keep him and pay him 28 mil. He will not cost us any draft picks and will allow MS to draft a QB in the first three rounds. The only risk from this will be paying Peyton, and that is it. If MS drafts a Tannehill or another young QB, you will have an immediate answer to the position and a future answer to the position.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=skinsguy;883040]Well, by the sound of it, it doesn't sound like they really HAVE to negotiate with Manning. After all, it sounds like he would be happy with an incentive laced contract as opposed to a lot of guaranteed money up front. If this happens to be true, I'm sure any GM would jump on that deal in a heartbeat. It would be a no-brainer to sign PM then.[/quote]

I'm not totally sure of this, so I defer to CC. But I believe that incentive laden deals, particularly if the incentives are reasonably attainable, are potentially more damaging to your salary cap than regular deals

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=Terpfan76;883042]I'm just not interested in drafting a 28 year old to be our "qb of the future". That is where the Weinke comparison comes in. A ton of picks for Luck >>>>>>>>> one pick on Weedon.[/quote]

I totally understand, and I'm of the opinion that I would not want the team to toss out 4 draft picks plus from the first two rounds of this year and next just to get a QB they really don't know how well he will do in the NFL. On top of that even if I use my common sense and say he's got talent I don't see it making a whole mess of difference if the coaching staff is going to expect him to sit in the pocket to deliver the ball. To me ...

Mobile QB means rolling him out more or more shot gun situations so he can run if need be. Beck being the more mobile QB was made to sit in the pocket more often then Grossman. It really didn't make much sense. So if the team is not going to use the mobility then don't draft him. Save your picks and get more weapons to put with some other QB better suited for the pocket passing role.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;883043]So what would you guys rather have:
QB Robert Griffin III
RB Roy Helu
RB Evan Royster
WR Leonard Hankerson
WR Jabar Gaffney
WR FA WR
TE Fred Davis
TE Chris Cooley

or

QB Peyton Manning
QB Ryan "Clark Kent" Tannehill
RB Roy Helu
RB Evan Royster
WR Justin Blackmon
WR Leonard Hankerson
WR Jabar Gaffney
WR FA WR
TE Fred Davis
TE Chris Cooley[/quote]

I'll take scenario #2, but honestly I don't think you will be able to get Blackmon #1, and I don't think if we could we would be able to get Tannehill also. Both I feel will be taken in the 1st round. I could be wrong. I know Miami is supposed to be up for Flynn and even if they get him I could see them still taking Tannehill as a back up for their 1st round pick.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=SmootSmack;883059]I'm not totally sure of this, so I defer to CC. But I believe that incentive laden deals, particularly if the incentives are reasonably attainable, are potentially more damaging to your salary cap than regular deals[/quote]

Ya I'm not sure if the rules have changed with the new CBA, but in the past any incentive that was "likely to be earned" counted against the cap right away. So incentives wouldn't help the cap situation too much.

They could use "unlikely to be earned" incentives. These only count on the cap if/when they are achieved. But if they are "unlikely" to be reached then Peyton might not want them in the first place.

Of course the ultimate "incentive" is to give Peyton very little guaranteed money up front, but then give him huge salaries every year. So basically if Peyton is still playing he will continue to earn these huge salaries every year. Once we have to trade/cut him it wouldn't hurt our cap at all since salary is not guaranteed.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=SBXVII;883062]I'll take scenario #2, but honestly I don't think you will be able to get Blackmon #1, and I don't think if we could we would be able to get Tannehill also. Both I feel will be taken in the 1st round. I could be wrong. I know Miami is supposed to be up for Flynn and even if they get him I could see them still taking Tannehill as a back up for their 1st round pick.[/quote]

So what. There will be other WRs available who will be just as good or better than Blackmon. WRs can be gotten anywhere. I too like Scenario #2 even if you replace Manning with Flynn or Orton and replace Blackmon with Jeffery or Floyd. Still beats #1.

I like RGIII, but he's not a lock. No One is.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

Lets get an incentive laden deal that offers a big pay day to Weeden if he can find a way to become 5 or 6 years younger.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=44Deezel;883082]So what. There will be other WRs available who will be just as good or better than Blackmon. WRs can be gotten anywhere. I too like Scenario #2 even if you replace Manning with Flynn or Orton and replace Blackmon with Jeffery or Floyd. Still beats #1.

I like RGIII, but he's not a lock. No One is.[/quote]

Franchise QB trumps all other needs. RG3 > Tannehill. Can get WR's and any other position in free agency...

Option #2 is not a bad one though...I just prefer 10+ years of RG3 over the Manning/Tannehill combo.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;883084]Lets get an incentive laden deal that offers a big pay day to Weeden if he can find a way to become 5 or 6 years younger.[/quote]

:D Unlikely incentive, I like it.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=CrazyCanuck;883064]Ya I'm not sure if the rules have changed with the new CBA, but in the past any incentive that was "likely to be earned" counted against the cap right away. So incentives wouldn't help the cap situation too much.

They could use "unlikely to be earned" incentives. These only count on the cap if/when they are achieved. But if they are "unlikely" to be reached then Peyton might not want them in the first place.

Of course the ultimate "incentive" is to give Peyton very little guaranteed money up front, but then give him huge salaries every year. So basically if Peyton is still playing he will continue to earn these huge salaries every year. Once we have to trade/cut him it wouldn't hurt our cap at all since salary is not guaranteed.[/quote]

Ahhhh I see! I didn't realize the incentives counted toward the salary cap. I always thought it was just purely the guaranteed money. In that case, then I change my mind on the incentive based contract.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=skinsguy;883091]Ahhhh I see! I didn't realize the incentives counted toward the salary cap. I always thought it was just purely the guaranteed money. In that case, then I change my mind on the incentive based contract.[/quote]

I think you have to count the max amount of the incentives. So if the floor is $5 million incentives but the ceiling is $40 million, you have to account for the $40 million.

But let's say only $10 million are reached, you can roll that remaining $30 million over to the next year. I think

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=SmootSmack;883092]I think you have to count the max amount of the incentives. So if the floor is $5 million incentives but the ceiling is $40 million, you have to account for the $40 million.

But let's say only $10 million are reached, you can roll that remaining $30 million over to the next year. I think[/quote]

Hhhhmmmm....OK! So if no incentives were reached in year one of the contract, you'd still have to roll the entire ceiling over to the next season? So, if you had $40 million to count against the salary cap this season, none of it was reached, you'd still have to turn around and count it again the following season? So, if $10 million was reached this year, then $30 million would count against the salary cap in season two? So forth and so on? Couldn't you write something in the contract that says this particular incentive loses its value the longer it takes to be achieved? So for instance, if the incentive was Peyton Manning sends us to the Super Bowl in the first year, he will receive an incentive of $50 million dollars. However, if the 'skins don't go to the Super Bowl this year, that incentive gets devalued to $30 million in year two of the contract, so forth and so on? Would that be legal?

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=skinsguy;883098]Hhhhmmmm....OK! So if no incentives were reached in year one of the contract, you'd still have to roll the entire ceiling over to the next season? So, if you had $40 million to count against the salary cap this season, none of it was reached, you'd still have to turn around and count it again the following season? So, if $10 million was reached this year, then $30 million would count against the salary cap in season two? So forth and so on? Couldn't you write something in the contract that says this particular incentive loses its value the longer it takes to be achieved? So for instance, if the incentive was Peyton Manning sends us to the Super Bowl in the first year, he will receive an incentive of $50 million dollars. However, if the 'skins don't go to the Super Bowl this year, that incentive gets devalued to $30 million in year two of the contract, so forth and so on? Would that be legal?[/quote]

Um ask Canuck

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=SmootSmack;883092]I think you have to count the max amount of the incentives. So if the floor is $5 million incentives but the ceiling is $40 million, you have to account for the $40 million.

But let's say only $10 million are reached, you can roll that remaining $30 million over to the next year. I think[/quote]

Yep...per new 10 year CBA -

(c) Incentives

(i) Any and all incentive amounts, including but not limited to performance bonuses, shall be included in Team Salary if they are "likely to be earned" during such League Year based upon the player's and/or Team's performance during the prior year.

(ii) At the end of the season, if performance bonuses actually earned resulted in a Tearm's paying Salary in excess of the Salary Cap, then the amount by which the Team exceeded the Salary Cap as a result of such actually paid performance bonuses shall be subtracted from the Tearm's Salary Cap for the next Lague Year.

(iii) At the end of a season, if performance bonuses previously included in a Tearm's Team Salary but not actually earned exceed performance bonuses actually earned but not previously included in Tearm Salary, an amount shall be added to the Team's Salary Cap for the next League Year equaling the amount, if any, by which such overage exceeds the Team's Room under the Salary Cap at the end of a season.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=SmootSmack;883101]Um ask Canuck[/quote]

Paging CrazyCanuck...paging CrazyCanuck!

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;883084]Lets get an incentive laden deal that offers a big pay day to Weeden if he can find a way to become 5 or 6 years younger.[/quote]

Excellent idea. The De Soto Clause.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=skinsguy;883098]Hhhhmmmm....OK! So if no incentives were reached in year one of the contract, you'd still have to roll the entire ceiling over to the next season? So, if you had $40 million to count against the salary cap this season, none of it was reached, you'd still have to turn around and count it again the following season? So, if $10 million was reached this year, then $30 million would count against the salary cap in season two? So forth and so on? Couldn't you write something in the contract that says this particular incentive loses its value the longer it takes to be achieved? So for instance, if the incentive was Peyton Manning sends us to the Super Bowl in the first year, he will receive an incentive of $50 million dollars. However, if the 'skins don't go to the Super Bowl this year, that incentive gets devalued to $30 million in year two of the contract, so forth and so on? Would that be legal?[/quote]

Higskin's post seems to confirm the incentive rules haven't changed.

It's not that complicated:

- If an incentive is "likely to be earned' it counts right away against the cap, with a credit the following year if the incentive is unreached.

- If an incentive is "unlikely to be earned" it won't count against the cap in the current year. It will count against the cap the following year if the incentive is reached.

... and any incentive involving the Redskins winning the Super Bowl would definitely be deemed "unlikely". :(

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=30gut;882970]If we sign Peyton Manning I wouldn't draft a QB in rounds 1-3.

Those picks would be better spent trying to add pieces to improve the team.

I would target developmental QB starting round 4 and down.[/quote]

I'm in Gut's camp on a lower round QB. We're only going to get a developmental rookie QB for 4-yrs (rookie contacts) and IF Manning signs here healthy, we've got him for 2-3. Spend those higher picks on supporting cast and look to acquire a 2nd tier guy like Claussen or Hoyer as a backup. They could then tinker with a no-risk 6th or 7th round QB.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=CrazyCanuck;883118]Higskin's post seems to confirm the incentive rules haven't changed.

It's not that complicated:

- If an incentive is "likely to be earned' it counts right away against the cap, with a credit the following year if the incentive is unreached.

- If an incentive is "unlikely to be earned" it won't count against the cap in the current year. It will count against the cap the following year if the incentive is reached.

... and any incentive involving the Redskins winning the Super Bowl would definitely be deemed "unlikely". :([/quote]

OK, sorry for asking so many questions, but I wanted to make sure I got this right. So a $40 million incentive that was likely to be earned this season but wasn't, is credit back to next season, meaning you're $40 million more under next year's cap simply by an incentive not reached in the prior season?

On the flip side, If that player exceeds all expectations, and looks like he could possibly earn those incentives "unlikely to be earned" - and those incentives were spread out throughout the life of the contract, a team [I]could[/I] possibly turn those incentives into guaranteed money if they wanted to free up salary cap space for a future season?

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=skinsguy;883127]So a $40 million incentive that was likely to be earned this season but wasn't, is credit back to next season, meaning you're $40 million more under next year's cap simply by an incentive not reached in the prior season?

On the flip side, If that player exceeds all expectations, and looks like he could possibly earn those incentives "unlikely to be earned" - and those incentives were spread out throughout the life of the contract, a team [I]could[/I] possibly turn those incentives into guaranteed money if they wanted to free up salary cap space for a future season?[/quote]

Not sure I totally understand your questions so I'll use an example.

A. We give Peyton a $10M incentive if he throws 20 TD passes in 2012. This would be deemed "likely". $10M would count against our 2012 cap. If he failed to throw 20 TDs then we would get the $10M back on our 2013 cap.

B. We give Peyton a $20M incentive if the Skins win the Super Bowl in 2012. This would be deemed "unlikely". Nothing would count against our 2012 cap. If we did win the SB in 2012, then the $20M would come off our 2013 cap.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

Has any one seen the post on Hogs Haven about a guy who ran into Jim Haslett and apparently had the opportunity to discuss the Redskins offseason plans. Sorry I tried to post the link but it wasnt working. Apparently:

-They have no interest in Matt Flynn
-They are not at all impressed with the other QBs in this years draft besides RG3 and Luck
-They are strongly considering trading up with the Rams and have already contacted Jeff Fisher
-The Manning to the Redskins talk is no joke. Bruce Allen apparently has had discussions with Indy organization members.
-Rex Grossman most likely may remain a Redskin.

If someone can properly post the link, it would be much appreciated.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

I just realized I couldnt post a link because i didnt have 10+ post yet lol

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

Now im able to post the link haha. Sorry if you guys already seen this post.

[url=http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/2/7/2783161/i-ran-into-jim-haslett-and-we-talked-qb-draft#storyjump]I Ran Into Jim Haslett and We Talked QB Draft, Manning, Trading Up - Hogs Haven[/url]

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=iRepDMV;883232]Now im able to post the link haha. Sorry if you guys already seen this post.

[url=http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/2/7/2783161/i-ran-into-jim-haslett-and-we-talked-qb-draft#storyjump]I Ran Into Jim Haslett and We Talked QB Draft, Manning, Trading Up - Hogs Haven[/url][/quote]

One, if I knew Haslett was 20 mins away from me, I would've been there too. But, on a serious note, I'm not sure if I would've spilled the beans in the manner Rodskins did. I would've protected Haslett from his neighborly talk in the form of anonmynity. Shit happens though.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

already posted here

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/46554-qb-apocalypse-the-seventh-sign-5.html#post883241[/url]

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=CrazyCanuck;883130]Not sure I totally understand your questions so I'll use an example.

A. We give Peyton a $10M incentive if he throws 20 TD passes in 2012. This would be deemed "likely". $10M would count against our 2012 cap. If he failed to throw 20 TDs then we would get the $10M back on our 2013 cap.

B. We give Peyton a $20M incentive if the Skins win the Super Bowl in 2012. This would be deemed "unlikely". Nothing would count against our 2012 cap. If we did win the SB in 2012, then the $20M would come off our 2013 cap.[/quote]

Gotcha...that makes sense to me.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

Reference Manning to Skins vs Phins:

Right now Skins are looking at ~94mil against an unknown 2012 cap but everyone is estimating ~$121 - $125mil. Miami is ~ $117mil. Each team gets back an unused portion from 2011, said to be $13.6mil for Skins and $3mil for Phins. The teams have to put aside $5mil for rookies. Also, Solari (NT) was tagged last year. If they didn't get a long term on him and tagged him again it'd be $15 mil right off the cap.

If Manning is going to do an incentive based, where exampled by Schefter on Mike & Mike this morning, say a $10mil start of the season with $5mil starting 8 games and additional $5mil at 16 games - can the Phins really afford Manning?

You'd think besides the above, the Phins would be pretty strapped to do anything in FA as well.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

Get Manning, Get Flynn, Get Foles...fill some other holes and now we're talking...

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

^^^ That can't be serious.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;886784]^^^ That can't be serious.[/quote]

I don't know him/her but I'd have guessed they are being somewhat sarcastic. I said somewhat.

Unless you'd like to see Grossman or Beck then this team needs to go out and locate a different Vet to play along side whatever Rookie is drafted. Notice we didn't see Orton which is a good sign that they are using their head.

I just doubt he/she meant that we should go out and pick up every FA QB and every RFA QB, skip Orton, and skip grabbing a young QB I the draft.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=diehard;883238]One, if I knew Haslett was 20 mins away from me, I would've been there too. But, on a serious note, I'm not sure if I would've spilled the beans in the manner Rodskins did. I would've protected Haslett from his neighborly talk in the form of anonmynity. Shit happens though.[/quote]

I don't think he realized the reach that hogs haven has.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

i spoke to allen's fishmonger, he confirmed that the redskins are going to resort to a vote of 3 on whether to sign peyton manning or not. it's all in the hands of marvcus patton, leslie shepherd, and romeo bandison. buddy crutchfield is 1st alternate, jeff rutledge is 2nd alternate

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

Here we GO!!!!!

[url=http://www.dcpetitionforpeyton.com/]DC Petition For Peyton[/url]

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=mredskins;883037]Which was the same plan with McNabb and that set us back big time. I don't want go down that road again.[/quote]

Sorry, not the same thing. If he gets a clean bill of health, and is confident enough in himself, a healthy, motivated Peyton manning, and Donovan McNabb are nowhere in the same fvcking ballpark.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=SBXVII;886787]I don't know him/her but I'd have guessed they are being somewhat sarcastic. I said somewhat.

Unless you'd like to see Grossman or Beck then this team needs to go out and locate a different Vet to play along side whatever Rookie is drafted. Notice we didn't see Orton which is a good sign that they are using their head.

I just doubt he/she meant that we should go out and pick up every FA QB and every RFA QB, skip Orton, and skip grabbing a young QB I the draft.[/quote]

You are right, it was meant to be somewhat sarcastic. It is fun to speculate and I just thought I would add my somewhat unrealistic scenario to go along with the 1231 others in this thread.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

Get Brandon Wheeden and fill some other holes would be a just fine by trading down in the 1st for other needs to start. We still need another draft like last year to catch up from Vinny's doings.

Although Clairbourne? a shut down corner at 6 would be OK by me as well. Lots of WR receiver talent in the NFC East that needs to be locked down by a shut down corner and we can get one. But if not trade down and do last years draft again and pick up Wheeden.

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=Mechanix544;886807]Here we GO!!!!!

[URL="http://www.dcpetitionforpeyton.com/"]DC Petition For Peyton[/URL][/quote]

That'll show 'em. Petitioning sports teams to sign players [I]always[/I] works!

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

EXACTLY!!!!!

I thought about putting some banners on some buses, but didnt have the funding to move forward with that!

Re: The "Inside Word" on the QB Search
 

[quote=Mechanix544;886973]EXACTLY!!!!!

I thought about putting some banners on some buses, but didnt have the funding to move forward with that![/quote]

It's been done already. I can't find the exact thread, but it was two thousand aught nine, and fans were so sick of the corrupt administration they hired a moving truck to drive around to voice their displeasure.