• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

BGO.C.D.: Peyton's Place

One of many experimental iterations ...

Boone

The Commissioner
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
41,713
Reaction score
2,376
Points
2,044
Location
Greensboro, NC

Marine Corps Virginia


’Citing “several people familiar with the Redskins’ thinking,” the Washington Post reported Wednesday morning that Mike Shanahan’s team will make an...

More...
 

servumtuum

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
0
Points
116
Location
Raleigh, NC

Indiana

Congratulations, one of your best efforts, IMO, Boone. You showed both the pros and cons of Peyton as a Redskin and the attendant emotional uncertainties that have plagued Redskins fans for years.

Well done, amigo. :cheers:
 

Canadian Hog

2019 BGO Ballers Champ
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,355
Reaction score
171
Points
63
Location
Ontario, Canada


Boone,

I'm right there with you. Great piece.

If this team goes after Peyton, it really is a sign of an identity crisis. Who are we? What do we want to become? Are we retooling? Are we rebuilding from the ground? What direction are we going? Somebody please tell me, because from a distance, it would just look like the front office is blindly drawing at straws. But then again, this shouldn't come as a surprise because it's one of the very same problems that has plagued this franchise for years - a lack of vision.

It really brings a sickening feeling to my stomach hearing all this stuff in the media about Washington making a strong push for a 14 year veteran. I thought this nightmare was over.
 

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
356
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

It's a strong piece, but I'm going to take the liberty of offering an opposing stance...namely, that to me the signing of Manning in and of itself--without the context of what ELSE the Skins would do regarding the longer-term QB situation--would not automatically be a negative thing.

If the Skins came out of this offseason with a Peyton Manning (who, by the way, no less that 11 other teams are vetting as well) AND say a Tannehill to groom behind him, I'm one happy Redskins fan.

If they come out of it with Peyton Manning and nobody else, and we're left to shop the FA scrapheap for nos. 2 and 3 in 2013, I'm locked and loaded for some poison blogging.

Just sayin'. I LOVE the idea of a healthy Peyton Manning bringing real honest to god NFL quarterbacking to this team for 2-4 years...but ONLY if there's also a clear longer-term option that comes with him.

I cannot imagine how that could be nightmare on any level.
 

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
356
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

Ah, but we don't get the luxury of hindsight on this one, hermano. We have to judge it on its merits today. As will the Redskins have to do in making the decision.

So, for the record....lets use the scenario I suggested as an example....

Manning and Tannehill are Redskins heading into training camp....with 1 being a dream and 10 being "quite a bit" of a nightmare....where would you rate that on the potential night vision scale?
 

servumtuum

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
0
Points
116
Location
Raleigh, NC

Indiana

Om, I understand your position completely. It seems to me that due to bad(!) experiences in the past the idea of bringing Peyton into the Skins fold is to many Redskins fans simply a continuation of poor decision making in FA by the FO regardless of whether or not he could be useful as an interim good QB/mentor to a rookie or not. There's a certain amount of gunshy cringing at the mere thought of Peyton coming here that's understandable in the context of how many times the FA moves the Redskins have made have blown up in everybody's faces. I may not agree with that position but I do understand where it comes from.
 

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
356
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

Me too, serv. As fans we don't get to "reset" our expectations/disspointments back to zero every time there's a regime change. The emotional carryover is blind to the changing names on the office doors. Burgundy and Gold is Burgundy and Gold.

But in our higher minds (intellectually, not cannabisally) we also know that's not fair to the current names on the doors. Mike and Bruce still deserve the benefit of the doubt--if they decide Manning (and hopefully a Young Gun In Training) is worth the risk/investment, I'm going to give them that benefit.

Or, perhaps read another way, more in tune with the prevailing general angst of Redskins Nation...enough rope with which to hang themselves. :)
 
Last edited:

Boone

The Commissioner
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
41,713
Reaction score
2,376
Points
2,044
Location
Greensboro, NC

Marine Corps Virginia

It's a strong piece, but I'm going to take the liberty of offering an opposing stance...namely, that to me the signing of Manning in and of itself--without the context of what ELSE the Skins would do regarding the longer-term QB situation--would not automatically be a negative thing.

If the Skins came out of this offseason with a Peyton Manning (who, by the way, no less that 11 other teams are vetting as well) AND say a Tannehill to groom behind him, I'm one happy Redskins fan.

If they come out of it with Peyton Manning and nobody else, and we're left to shop the FA scrapheap for nos. 2 and 3 in 2013, I'm locked and loaded for some poison blogging.

Just sayin'. I LOVE the idea of a healthy Peyton Manning bringing real honest to god NFL quarterbacking to this team for 2-4 years...but ONLY if there's also a clear longer-term option that comes with him.

I cannot imagine how that could be nightmare on any level.
I agree that were the Redskins, in addition to acquiring Manning, also draft his successor, that would be something different altogether. While I'd like to believe that getting Manning wouldn't necessarily preclude the Redskins pursuing RGIII, I don't view that as realistic or likely. I wouldn't know how to feel about Manning and Tannehill - as it would really depend on what kind of QB Tannehill proved to be. Problem with that scenario is, unless we're prepared to draft Tannehill at #6 (which I think is a major reach), he won't be a Redskin. He'll be drafted in the first round by someone.

So I'm not sure how likely Manning PLUS a top tier rookie QB would be. Manning and a 'project QB' might be likelier. I wouldn't view that much more favorably than Manning alone.

Don't misread my comments in the blog though. The reason I listed 'Pros' is because there are some. If the Redskins somehow convince Manning he's best off in burgundy and gold, I'll get on board with it. But I'll continue to argue it's a desperate move if we go that route, and not one best aimed at the long-term interests of the team, or most likely to help us get back to a winning tradition.
 
Last edited:

Boone

The Commissioner
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
41,713
Reaction score
2,376
Points
2,044
Location
Greensboro, NC

Marine Corps Virginia

Saying Manning's QB performance has declined every year since 2004 is utter bull****. His QB RATING has declined, yes - but that's not the same thing. Manning had a career best 4700 passing yards in his last season, and his stats match up very well with his prime years with one exception, he threw more interceptions. There are a lot of reasons that may have happened. Poor receivers, less protection and time to throw, or just plain bad luck.

But I see no evidence, at least from his last full season playing, that Manning is a declining QB. The numbers don't even come close to supporting that. At least not yet.
 

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
356
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

Yeah, that article is pretty much what one expects from the mainstream media these days....pick a position, list every angle you can to defend it, and move on. No mention of context or, in this case, listing of the potential benefits of the move to any particular team.

Good thing we have independents like brother Boone to understand and eloquently point out the vast gray between black and white. :)

I agree we won't proably get Manning AND RGIII (although what better way for ol' Danny Boy to "make a splash" than that?), so what I'm kinda thinking/hoping might be the answer, IF they were to land Peyton, is to trade down the #6 in hopes of landing Tannehill or whatever other draft QB they target a little lower.
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
Saying he was slightly above average in 2010 is pretty ridiculous. He was second in the NFL in yards, TDs & completion percentage. I guess that means there were a lot of atrocious QBs in 2010, if Manning was the benchmark for "slightly above average."
 

Boone

The Commissioner
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
41,713
Reaction score
2,376
Points
2,044
Location
Greensboro, NC

Marine Corps Virginia

Well, as you point out Mark, there are so many possible scenarios, it's impossible to say what opportunities the Redskins will have. If we were to lose out on Manning and RGIII somehow, I might even be okay with reaching for Tannehill at #6. We need a great QB, but I'd settle for one with potential.

I'm still on the RGIII bandwagon. Bigtime. Whatever it takes, make it happen. I'm hoping all of the media talk on Manning to DC is pure Shanahan/Allen magic with one purpose in mind and one purpose only. To convince the Rams to jump on whatever offer we've made to move up, and to do it soon.

If that's what's going on here - I am in awe. :)
 

Burgundy Burner

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
24,028
Reaction score
330
Points
1,113
Location
Memphis, TN

Virginia

That was a very good blog entry - thanks for putting it together.

I'm neutral on having him here. I would be ok with it if we still had RG3 as THE primary target in the draft. Ryan Tannehill is going to be an excellent QB in this league, but that is just my opinion. I would be fine with a Manning-Tannehill combo, but I really think we should get RG3 under any scenario.

Also, if this is nothing more than a smokescreen, then I can understand it. Anything to lower the cost of trading our first round draft pick (unless we trade down) is a good thing.

One other thing - I thought about making this a separate thread, but there are enough QB titles in the forum and this is a good place to put this idea...

What if we were able to outbid everyone for PM and then pull a stunner on the first day of the draft or on draft-eve (or anytime prior)? We trade PM to a Miami, an Arizona, or a Seattle for their second rounder - maybe first if one is desperate enough. Would you put it past Coach Shanahan and GM Allen to do such a thing? Perhaps a package deal with a Santana Moss or a Chris Cooley.
 

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
356
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

Boone, I've been thinking about the whole "Peyton as smokescreen" thing too....no one plays the disinformation game with more gusto than Shanahan....it is entirely possible this is all part of the RGIII Acquisition strategy.

Which, for the record, I am thoroughly behind. For all my talk about Payton Manning AND a Young Hotshot in the draft...unless that hotshot is RGIII, given my druthers I'd rather see Payton in another city and the twitter world light up in the next couple of days with news that the Skins and Rams have agreed to terms.

I love me some RGIII too.
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,884
Reaction score
503
Points
1,143

Florida State

...If they come out of it with Peyton Manning and nobody else, and we're left to shop the FA scrapheap for nos. 2 and 3 in 2013, I'm locked and loaded for some poison blogging.

Just sayin'. I LOVE the idea of a healthy Peyton Manning bringing real honest to god NFL quarterbacking to this team for 2-4 years...but ONLY if there's also a clear longer-term option that comes with him.

I cannot imagine how that could be nightmare on any level.
Let's look at it from and even longer term perspective if we don't come away with someone other than Weeden or Russell in the draft. Maybe Matt Barkely is the goal of this front office. What if we looked past this upcoming season, signed Peyton to a 3 year deal,, signed a handful of quality younger free agents, traded down from our 6 pick and stocked up in all the places we have needs, completely building a solid unit with solid depth everywhere around Peyton with the intent of giving away the farm next year for Matt Barkely once this team is a lot more solid?
 

McD5

The Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
14,949
Reaction score
11
Points
318
Location
Orlando

Florida State

Fantastic piece Boone....I enjoyed it.

No worries amigo.....Manning has no interest in our organization, regardless of how badly Dan may want him.

I believe he would retire and become a broadcaster before ever coming to the Skins.
 

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,095
Reaction score
356
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

Let's look at it from and even longer term perspective if we don't come away with someone other than Weeden or Russell in the draft. Maybe Matt Barkely is the goal of this front office. What if we looked past this upcoming season, signed Peyton to a 3 year deal,, signed a handful of quality younger free agents, traded down from our 6 pick and stocked up in all the places we have needs, completely building a solid unit with solid depth everywhere around Peyton with the intent of giving away the farm next year for Matt Barkely once this team is a lot more solid?
All of that sounds reasonable....but I'd suggest that the Redskins have been inept at QB for so long, and have put off making an aggressive play to address that for so long, that at SOME point they have to draw a line in the sand and say THIS is the year.

They've been saying "next year" for over a decade. They are in position to make a serious play for an RGIII largely becasue they sucked so bad at QB last year. A Manning season isn't likely to net them another top 10 pick next season... so giving away next year's farm might well require a whole lot more acreage than giving away this year's.

I've been saying the time is now for this kind of all-out-offensive on addressing the QB situation for several years. Every year they don't, to me, just exacerbates and already awful situation. To me, the time is now.

Fantastic piece Boone....I enjoyed it.

No worries amigo.....Manning has no interest in our organization, regardless of how badly Dan may want him.

I believe he would retire and become a broadcaster before ever coming to the Skins.
We'll see. :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Private conversations
Help Users
    Top