Quote:
Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689
I'd rather have Flynn or Foles or Tannehill than a non healthy Manning.
|
Come on, you would rather have John Beck than a "non healthy Manning". If Peyton Manning is too injured to play, even John Beck is a better option.
ANY discussion of Peyton Manning's use or value to the Redskins must assume that - - on the first snap of the 2012 season - - he is fully healthy and ready to play. Once the season starts, he like EVERY other QB on EVERY roster in the league is open to injury.
I have not seen Peyton Manning's X-Rays - - and even if they were delivered to me in the next five minutes, I would be unable to look at them and make a decision as to his likely ability to play NFL football next September. Just a hunch here, but I doubt that anyone else posting here has seen those X-Rays either.
Obviously, if Peyton Manning cannot play he is of no value to any team in the NFL as a QB. So,
IF the Redskins find a means to acquire him in the next few months, there are only two conclusions you can draw:
1. The Redskins have retained the services of an orthopedic doctor in whom they have complete confidence who has reviewed Manning's medical history and examined Manning thoroughly and that doctor has told the Redskins that in his professional opinion, Peyton Manning is physically prepared to play NFL football.
2. The Redskins are rolling the dice and hoping they do not come up snake-eyes.