Peyton Manning Skins Roundtable (With Bonus Peyton-Skins Poll!)

The hype machine is out full-force on the Peyton Manning to the Redskins rumors. Any major news outlet you look at is reporting on the possibility, and the Shanahans remain mum on the topic. There are plenty of questions on Peyton’s health and what it will take to sign him, but the bigger question for Skins fans is if Peyton is the right fit. Some folks say they should, others say no way. We opened the Peyton issue up to our team of “semi-rational homers” for analysis and want your take in the comments.

Andy Peden: I guess it’s 20 years of shit that has me believing that this would only go badly. If healthy we could get Peyton for three or four years without giving up any draft picks. We could also use the No. 6 pick for a playmaker on offense. And hopefully spend an early-round pick this year or next on the QB of the future. But this is the Redskins so I’m guessing if we were to sign him he would immediately tear his ACL.

Jack Kogod: Signing Peyton Manning would be a step backwards. Even if he is healthy (hard to believe) bringing him in would go against everything they’ve done to rebuild the roster over the past two years. The team still needs a lot of pieces. Most important among them is a young quarterback.

(Ed. note: Jack also talked about this in his Washingtonian piece.)

Matt Terl: I’ve been having the whole Eeyore-ish “no matter what they do it’s doomed to failure” feeling with each rumor that’s come out. But the thing is, at some point they’re going to have to do SOMETHING with that QB situation, because you simply can’t trot out Rex or Beck again. My main criteria for that “something” are that it not involve giving up too many draft picks and that it not cripple the salary cap. So: IF Peyton is available as a free agent, and IF he really is willing to construct a low-guarantee, incentive-laden deal … oh, and if his freakin’ NECK can still function at an NFL level … well, it seems like a fairly low-risk/high-reward proposition.

On the other hand, they’ll probably give up a 1, a 2 and a 4 for him and sign him to a 10-year extension while just taking him at his word that his neck is A-okay, and then I will have an aneurysm and die.

Jamie Mottram: I hate to agree with Joe Theismann on something, but here we are. Seems like the best-case scenario with Peyton is a Joe Montana-in-Kansas City-type result, meaning maybe the Redskins could contend for a couple of years before starting over again.

I’d much rather see them play the long game, either by going all in with Flynn, signing an Orton-type and drafting a non-Luck or -RG3 QB, or *gulp* actually trading up for Luck or RG3 (probably in that order). That’s the only way I see the Skins embarking on any sort of extended run of success.

Chris Mottram: In the grand scheme, it seems pretty clear that signing Peyton Manning is not the answer for the Redskins. I think we all pretty well agree on that. But let’s look at the positive possibilities here instead of going full doomsday.

Assuming he is healthy (which will be a prerequisite to any team signing him), Peyton Manning is a significant upgrade at QB, a position the Skins need upgraded more than any other on the field. That goes without saying, but he’s also better right now than any other QB that Washington could draft or sign. If we’re interested in seeing the Skins compete next season and not spend another year in a pit of depression, then signing Manning to an incentive-laden deal could be a very good thing.

We also don’t necessarily have to set back the rebuilding process to do so. There are still draft scenarios which help Washington’s future, the most likely of which would involve filling a need at No. 6 (WR or O-line, preferably) and then drafting a Ryan Tannehill-type in the second round. Learning under Peyton for a couple seasons instead of throwing RG3 into the starting role right away doesn’t sound like an awful scenario.

Obviously, this is a lot of what-ifs. But it looks like the Skins will be getting Peyton, so we all better start convincing ourselves it’s not the end of the world.

Jack Kogod: BOOOO!

Matt Terl: I sure hope they can find a way to incorporate the concept of “convincing ourselves it’s not the end of the world” — or maybe just “grim resignation” — into this year’s marketing campaign. Not quite as obvious as “R YOU IN” but I think it could be a real winner.

Chris Mottram: I’m fairly certain that about 80 percent of the Skins fan base would think signing Peyton is the best thing ever. Wouldn’t take much marketing effort to get them excited.

JP Finlay: Sixty-five percent of Peyton is better than 200 percent of RexBeck. Moving up to get RG3 would cost too much with too many other holes to plug. There is one thing that everyone complaining about the signing seems to be forgetting here: This is Peyton Manning.

I never wanted Donovan when we traded for him. His best years were clearly past him, way past him. Peyton performed at an incredibly high level before his injury. If he is healthy, and it’s a big if, one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play could start for the Redskins.

But we can’t give up draft picks. If somehow we give away picks to get Peyton before we know he can play, I am off the bandwagon. But in the end, if it only costs us Danny Dollars, SIGN PEYTON MANNING!

Todd Davis: See the Kansas City Chiefs section of Wikipedia’s Joe Montana page for my thoughts. Quick return likely to generate excitement but will set the franchise back another decade if they don’t take their chance on a young franchise QB now. Definitely gonna happen. I’ll hate it, then convince myself how great it could be, then enjoy the ride, rationalize that a playoff appearance is nothing to discount, and feel like same swarthy, disgusting way I do waking up from a night in Vegas when it’s over and I haven’t really been rewarded with a prize worth the price I paid in herpes.

15 thoughts on “Peyton Manning Skins Roundtable (With Bonus Peyton-Skins Poll!)”

  1. I don’t see how signing Manning would set the franchise back farther than drafting some mid-level QB (i.e. Tannehill) and then watching him turn out to be Pat Ramsey 2.0. Yeah, obviously if you can get an All-Pro QB in the second round, then by all means do, but you know, there’s a reason any such QB falls to the second round–he’s probably not gonna be that great.

    I’d certainly rather have Luck or RGIII than Manning, but I think the worst thing we can do is keep drafting mid-level QB prospects and spend the next 10 years w/ more Ramseys and Campbells (and Grossmans and Becks, who were mid-first/second rounders themselves). If you want to grab a QB in the second round, at least wait until a deeper draft where a good QB is more likely to be available in the 2nd (and I don’t count Tannehill, who (a) I don’t think is that good, and (b) is probably gonna end up going in the first round anyways).

  2. “We also don’t necessarily have to set back the rebuilding process to do so.”

    Ah, but we do.

    Signing Peyton signals a reincarnation of the same bullshit “we can win now” strategy that has failed this team for decades. It emerges from the self-delusional poison in the water in Ashburn that somehow convinces every coach and GM regime that this team is close. It’s not.

    Signing Peyton is the first step in a strategy that involves losing draft picks, roster spots and cap space for overrated, bad-fit veterans. It won’t happen immediately, but after a 9-7 season you can bet your black ass it will. And it WON’T. FUCKING. WORK.

  3. Get RG3 vs FA type

    Our good young guys age & go the way of FA while the rest of the team wallows in mediocrity as we continue to lose by a TD or less waiting for some average QB like Burnnell, McNabb, Grossman to get lucky.

    Look I get everyone’s point. This team has holes & losing draft picks makes it harder to fill them. A decent QB & we win both games vs Dallas & the majority of the close ones we lost.

    Football is obviously a team sport but an elite QB can turn franchises around. Brees, Mannings, Brady, etc have all done this. I’m NOT saying RG3 is the next one but there comes a point were the Washington Redskins have to invest in getting someone who’s got the God given ability to take the ball & go 80 yards in a 2:00 drill because that player isint in FA pool.

    I’m against getting “bent over the table” to move up in the draft but I’m strongly against the side that fears making the trade simply because they’re not sure how it’ll turn out. What I think Skins fans should be asking is: What would you trade to put this franshise back on the map?

  4. We won’t be giving up picks to sign Peyton.. Every team knows Indy can’t afford Luck and Peyton so he will be cut.

    Rebuilding takes time, the skins need all their picks. We have only had one draft where we used all our picks (last year), we need at least another without trading any of our picks away.

    Id much rather sign Peyton, trade our number six pick down, draft a LT/RT and the Stanford RG in the first round, and use all the rest of our other picks to fill in other needs than gut the rest of our draft trading up for RG3 so he can play behind a sub-par offensive line.

    If RG3 is available at #6 obviously draft him though..

    Sounds counter-intuitive but I believe we have to “Offseason-Champ” it (without giving up draft picks) one more time to finish the rebuild.

  5. Sorry, but if the Skins can get Peyton without forfeiting picks (likely scenario), i’m all for it.

    *deep breath*

    If Indy was a two win team without Peyton, the Skins contend for the NFC East next year with him. Bottom line. Yes, we’ll pay for it and the salary cap will take a hit. Boo-hoo… Every player on this roster could use a couple years of the leadership and mentality that Peyton would instill. We should look at this as a positive step in the rebuilding process; again, assuming we don’t give up picks.

    And I’m tired of people putting Beck and Rex in the same sentence. Is Rexy bad? Sure. But Beck is on a whole different level of bad, like i’d take JaMarcus Russell over him bad.

  6. “We should look at this as a positive step in the rebuilding process”

    Peyton will not sign up for a rebuild. Peyton will only go where he’s assured a win-now strategy.

    That means, inevitably, after season 1 falls short, the ‘Skins will be pressured (or have planned all along) to play the free agent/trade picks for veterans games.

    Peyton is not a moron. If he signs with the Redskins, he knows it’s because they are willing to rape their future for the present. Well, I am the future, and I don’t want to be raped anymore.

  7. Is this a joke? First off, Peyton will not sign with the skins. Especially not if it’s an “incentive laden” deal. The dude wants to win, if he can even play. The only way we get him is to blow Danny’s load(of cash) all over him to convince him DC can contend for a super bowl next year. We’re not even close, and we’ll only get farther away by going after Peyton.

    I don’t want to bother with second off…

  8. Sally Jenkins’ article yesterday was the scariest thing I’ve read in a while. How anyone can be so sure of something like that is beyond me.

    I think if he had any hope left the Colts would hold onto him (its the right thing to do, and they probably know his current capability better than anyone).

    The only reason we would need to rush this rebuilding process is to not let the few good pieces we have (orakpo/kerrigan, RBs) waste away. The only solid players (aside from Fletcher) we have are still young and can afford to wait a year or two for additional support.

    I’d rather take another year or three of rebuilding personally.

  9. Aha! I figured it out:

    “we can win now” strategy that has failed this team for decades. It emerges from the self-delusional poison in the water in Ashburn.

    The problem is Asburn! They have been on the decline since the moved out to new Redskins Park.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>