The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by mooby

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.

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.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Which was the same plan with McNabb and that set us back big time. I don't want go down that road again.

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

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

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Terpfan76

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.

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

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

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.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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.

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.

[Dirtbag59]

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.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

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.

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.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

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.

Unlikely incentive, I like it.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

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.

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

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

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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?

Um ask Canuck

[Higskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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.