Colts Officially Release Peyton Manning (QB Thread #11)

[mredskins]

Manning and RGIII as the backup is the best case. You got Manning for 3 to 4 years then resign RGIII and release Manning. You are set at QB for 10 to 12 years then start building everything else around that.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Manning and RGIII as the backup is the best case. You got Manning for 3 to 4 years then resign RGIII and release Manning. You are set at QB for 10 to 12 years then start building everything else around that.

With this you basically pay RGIII to ride the pine, then RGIII is up for a new contract and he hasn't even proven he's worth it yet. That's a lot of $$ to tie up at QB too.

I think it's a case of picking one or the other. Not both.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

With this you basically pay RGIII to ride the pine, then RGIII is up for a new contract and he hasn't even proven he's worth it yet. That's a lot of $$ to tie up at QB too.

I think it's a case of picking one or the other. Not both.

Same thing will happen if you get Tannehill.

[redskins5044]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Same thing will happen if you get Tannehill.

but u would have to give up picks for RG3 and i dont think they would sign manning and then draft Tannehill at #6, they might draft a QB later/

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by redskins5044

but u would have to give up picks for RG3 and i dont think they would sign manning and then draft Tannehill at #6, they might draft a QB later/

you are probably right. i was just running some "what if" drills.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

I hadnt really thought about it until i read the article linked here, but this is a big area of concern if we sign manning:

Five thoughts on Redskins signing Manning | Washington Examiner

4. The offensive line's strength does not mesh with a straight drop-back passing game. The Redskins' line is built to block on the move and is helped by play-action and bootlegs. But Manning made bad and mediocre lines look good in Indianapolis with quick decision making. If he's in a system he knows well and with players he's comfortable with, that should continue. However, it should increase the need to find a right tackle in the draft eventually to replace oft-injured Jammal Brown. Of course, that could happen anyway.

If we get manning, we may not have the right type of offensive line to protect him. So lets just say we change our OL philosophy and overhaul the line (including drafting a tackle in the 1st round) to better suit a straight drop-back passing game. What do we do when manning retires in 3-5 years? get rid of the line again and go back to a more shanahan-esque line with smaller, more athletic guys? or stick with the manning-esque system so we keep the line in tact? As much as i love the idea of manning in the B&G, these concerns are really making me reconsider my position.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I hadnt really thought about it until i read the article linked here, but this is a big area of concern if we sign manning:

Five thoughts on Redskins signing Manning | Washington Examiner

If we get manning, we may not have the right type of offensive line to protect him. So lets just say we change our OL philosophy and overhaul the line (including drafting a tackle in the 1st round) to better suit a straight drop-back passing game. What do we do when manning retires in 3-5 years? get rid of the line again and go back to a more shanahan-esque line with smaller, more athletic guys? or stick with the manning-esque system so we keep the line in tact? As much as i love the idea of manning in the B&G, these concerns are really making me reconsider my position.

Regardless of who's the QB, we need a RT period. I think o-line play may be something Manning can adjust to, but I also think that the thread of Manning makes any o-line better. Manning is notorious for picking up apart blitz-happy defenses, and that was without a running game.

While I think our o-line should be much improved (provided they stay healthy, but that happens to every o-line), I also think having a QB of Manning's caliber, along with an actual running, should take care of any o-line issues.

Grossman and Beck didn't scare any defenses, so they stacked the line and blitz the hell out of us. I don't think the same thing will be happening with Manning under center and an improved receivers group.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Same thing will happen if you get Tannehill.

True but I kinda doubt we would go with RT at #6 if we got Manning.

I think we'd go BPA at #6, and look for a QB to develop later on.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

True but I kinda doubt we would go with RT at #6 if we got Manning.

I think we'd go BPA at #6, and look for a QB to develop later on.

If we did draft a tackle at 6, i would think it would be a left tackle. given williams is one smoke away from a 1 year suspension and has the ability to play both left and right, it might be prudent to move him to the right side, as itd be less impactful to replace a RT than a LT during the season due to injury.

That said, if we are stuck at 6, i think we'll take offensive BPA.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

True but I kinda doubt we would go with RT at #6 if we got Manning.

I think we'd go BPA at #6, and look for a QB to develop later on.

I wouldn't mind a trade down in this situation as well.