Profootballtalk is reporting that Peytonwould be interested in playing for the Texans. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/13/report-peyton-may-be-interested-in-playing-for-the-texans/
simular stories can be found on yahoo sports and sportingnews.com
this actually makes sense because they are a contender and it would give him a chance to stick it to the colts twice a year. This would be great news to the redskins because that would instantly add another qb to the market. This of course is good news for the redskins because.........
First and formost it adds a quaterback via trade to the market and decreases the leverage the texans have. No team keeps that much money at quaterback. Schaub I believe signed a 6 year 48 million dollar deal back in 07. So that would leave him with about a 2 year deal. So the redskins could actually trade for him and if it doesnt work out your not tied to 1 guy for a long time. And you could still draft your rookie this year.Just because Peyton might be interested doesnt mean the Texans are I understand that. But they would at least have to think about it. My best case scenario is us landing RG3 and as Ive stated I think the new rookie wage scale should bring his value down nobodys trading away 3 or 4 first round picks for a guy you can only sign to a 4 year deal. But I would also be happy with Matt Schaub at a fair price that doesnt include or 1st pick. so what do you guys think?
0 recs | 35 comments
John Clayton said that the texans aren't going to give up Schaub to get manning
If we have no quarterback and most of us don’t want manning what makes you think the texans with a stable quarterback will do the same
Benson L - February 14, 2012
I tried my best to put up my first FanPost, regarding where some of these QBs will end up...
but I must have been doing something wrong, so I’ll respond here -
I have speculated Houston to be one of the teams who might be a good landing place for Manning, yet I propose that he ends up in ………………………..Arizona. To make room for Peyton, they will need to release Kevin Kolb (which I think they would be all for, an opportunity to get out of that horrible contract).
Kolb then ends up in Cleveland. Brad Childress is the new OC there, so there is a system connection, along with familiarity. Cleveland will then draft WR Blackmon, merging him with Greg Little. (I also think is it possible that Hillis goes back).
Flynn ends up in Miami. Sure, there owner dreams of Marino’s replacement, Manning, but Flynn is the fallback plan. Some have said truthfully, that Philbin is not the final decision maker. Yet, I have a hard time seeing why a team would bring in a new HC, and then decide NOT to go after players he would want, especially if those players are very familiar with his system.
This leaves us with our trade with St. Louis for #2 …………………………..RG the Third!!!!!!!!!!
jgibbsfan1 - February 14, 2012
So if Browns and Dolphins are not trading up then why would we???? IF this (never going to happen) senerio does happens then why dont we sit and take RG3 at #6 instead of trading up.
squigums - February 14, 2012
exactly
RG III would probably fall to us.
aFan4Life - February 14, 2012
Yeah, Cleveland is the main threat above us
but some other team could trade up with the Browns, Stl, Minn or even TB – and we wouldn’t know it until too late. RG3 could get snatched right in front of our eyes.
Donnio1234 - February 14, 2012
You really think
RGIII will last until pick 6? Six of the first 10 teams picking could use a QB, and even if they didn’t what about BPA?
OakCityRam - February 15, 2012
Thats crazy
I thought about the same thing yesterday about Manning going to the colts and the browns ending up with kolb because of childres. But if that happened why would we need to trade with the rams?
taylor21 - February 14, 2012
Great point...
and funny, how many guys on this site would be fine with our taking him @ #6. I would be ecstatic. FA will bleed most of the movement out, so by the time the draft comes around, we will have a very good idea of what teams will still be looking for a QB.
Why trade up? SteveShoup, on another post, talked about teams like Seattle, or KC, who might attempt to trade up and get RG3. I would just feel more comfortable sequring the pick to guaranteeing us selection of one of the top 2 QBs in this draft.
jgibbsfan1 - February 14, 2012
Perfectly fine taking Griffin at 6
The player, despite a couple concerns I have about size and durability, is not my issue. Giving up multiple draft picks has always been my major problem with acquiring Griffin. Take the trade up out of it and I’m good to go.
tuckwell - February 14, 2012 via iPhone app
i agree that even if Cleveland and Miami you'd still need to trade up for RGIII
now maybe you could risk it a little bit and try to work out a deal with Minn. or Cle. to move up, since teams like the Seahawks, KC and Jets might try to move up there since it will be cheaper. But of course the Redskins 6th overall pick would be very tempting for the Vikes or Browns.
As for the difference of being okay selecting him vs trading up for him, i think it is pretty simple. In taking RGIII at 6, its a 1 for 1 decision, between him and whomever is on the board. Sure trading back is a viable option, but RGIII fills your biggest need. Now for me as someone who is against trading up, the issue is those others picks. QB is the biggest need, and most important position, but it doesn’t out trump everything else. At the very least I think we can all agree that trading up will cost our 2nd and next years 1st, that is 3 premium players for 1. Even with positional value that is a tough sell (not to mention it will probably include a couple other picks), especially for a team that lacks a lot of high level starters and good depth.
The other factor is there seems to be this assumption that RGIII or bust, but the Skins could take a QB (Tannehill or Weeden) in round 2 or possibly next year. So the real question we have to ask is Griffin so much better than Tannehill/Weeden that he is worth say a top tackle (Reiff) and a top CB/WR next year (and any other additional players)?
Steve Shoup - February 14, 2012
two items...
That was when we were talking about moving up to #2. But, if, as you summize, we trade up with say, Cleveland, that probably wouldn’t be the price. Agree? Yes, it is contingent on other teams, which would require Cleveland to drop much farther down the draft board…
There is a reason RG3 is rated so high, and the other guys are NOT. Awesomeness!!! Could we still find a OT / CB later? I’m sure. But the Tannehills pale in comparison to the skill set of RG3. So, to answer your question, from my perspective, Yes, he is worth more.
jgibbsfan1 - February 14, 2012
look if you can get RGIII for only giving up our 2nd rounder then i'll bite
its when the cost gets higher that i think it becomes a disservice to the skins
Steve Shoup - February 14, 2012
as for Griffin being that much more valuable I don't think that really is the case (esp. with Tannehill)
look at last year. Let’s say the Bengals could have traded up for Newton, by giving up their 1st, 2nd and this year’s 1st and 4th (the proposed trade above). And lets say that they had zero expectation of being able to trade Palmer. Is Newton better than Dalton? sure, but is he worth A.J. Green plus another 1st and 4th rounder? And if they made that trade would the Bengals have been in the playoffs last year?
Dalton didn’t have the greatest numbers, but he did a better job at not turning over the ball, and made some key plays late in games. I don’t put a ton of stock in ‘clutch factor’ but Dalton while less dynamic, made more big plays at the end of games. Then you factor in Green’s impact, and I think it is safe to say the Bengals wouldn’t have been a playoff team with Newton over Dalton/Green.
Steve Shoup - February 14, 2012
we have gone down this road before...
I don’t get into debates dealing with Hypotheticals. I get your point, but you, nor I have any clue what Newton would have done in Cincy. Their defense played very good, giving them chances in games, and someone like Cam could have dynamically carried their offense. BUT WHO KNOWS!!
jgibbsfan1 - February 15, 2012
okay then, answer the simple question. Is Newton worth Green, Dalton another 1st and more?
Steve Shoup - February 15, 2012
the answer to that question is easy...
NOW! Now we get to look back and determine. But, last year, if you ask people would then trade them off, 50/50 would, just like this fan base is 50/50 on trading up or down…
What if Dalton sucked. We didn’t know then what we know now. No one thought bringing in a rookie QB / QR combo would do so well. Their good luck is envied, but it is not always easy to duplicate…
jgibbsfan1 - February 15, 2012
agreed, but Cam could have just as easily sucked
i would actually guess that more people would be for Cam last year or RGIII this year then 50/50 but it is hard to say. For me it isn’t even about specific players, just the sheer fact of 3 premium picks (and probably some extra) for 1 guy. If the Skins already had more talent/extra picks then I could be convinced but right now i’m just not. For RGIII to be worth it he’d basically have to be a top 5 QB and ASAP.
Steve Shoup - February 15, 2012
opps...
*they
*WR
jgibbsfan1 - February 15, 2012
another factor you did not mention is...
Shanahan’s tenure. Entering his third year, even if Snyder is allowing him 5 yrs., he needs to begin to show a direction. By waiting for next year (his 4th), he wouldn’t have as much time to allow the development of a rookie QB.
By taking RG3 this year, you have a much better idea how long the process will take AFTER this coming season, before entering your 4th season, with a game plan laid out to present to Snyder.
jgibbsfan1 - February 14, 2012
this is what I don't get though
a rookie or young (3 years or less) QB hasn’t saved the jobs of Del Rio, Morris, D. Green, M. Mularky etc. in recent years. And even Shanny lost his job despite his young ‘franchise’ QB was considered a success.
The way I look at it is the Redskins are likely to finish below .500 no matter what they do this offseason, but 2013 will be the key for them (and Shanny’s tenure) so moves should be made that cause the highest possible impact for 2013. To me trading away the 2013 first rounder is a big risk, and could really set back this team.
Steve Shoup - February 14, 2012
I agree with one point...
2013 is the year. We can get RG3 this year, play him, see what he offers, let him learn and develop this year, and focus on his second year OR
take a lower guy, who will require more developing, IMO, having no idea what he will be able to accomplish with this team, since we will most likely be riding the bench (Weeden is probably the only exception, but I will pass), and most likely will never reach a level that RG3 could. I am referring to each’s ceiling capabilities. So, as usual, each strategy can be implemented, we just see it differently.
jgibbsfan1 - February 15, 2012
okay but it shouldn't be assumed that RGIII will be ready to show his talents on the field
most rookie QB’s struggle, esp. those on bad teams. Sitting RGIII (for at least 2/3 the season) is the smart play as well.
Steve Shoup - February 15, 2012
I would expect him to have struggles...
I would like to get them out of the way next year, see what his talents are and how the offense can be tailored to them.
jgibbsfan1 - February 15, 2012
in the draft...
trading up or down IS NOT as important as the actual development of the players selected, wouldn’t you agree? We could have traded down like last year, and selected duds. No one would commend us for that. And if we trade up, and that player becomes great, no one says we are insane.
It’s all about the players becoming very good/great that makes a good draft selection.
jgibbsfan1 - February 15, 2012
I think it is a combination of things
development being key, but also finding the right guys. Guys that fit the system, have good pedigree’s, intelligent, hard working etc. That really seemed to be the focus last year. Guys like Kerrigan and Jenkins were undervalued b/c they maybe didn’t fit as well into every system. Ditto with Helu.
I think you are right that the who you draft is more important than where you draft. For example the Broncos got 2 1sts and a 3rd for Cutler, but they drafted so poorly those two years they have little to show for it. Same with the Skins windfall in the Ricky Williams deal. They didn’t execute in the later rounds so their actual return wasn’t nearly as much as it should be. That is why I think the Skins did well at managing the draft last year, for them they knew they could pick up a mid 2nd rounder (which they then turned into a 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th) and still come away with a very good player at one of their many need positions. The Skins saw that they would be able to fill at least 2 needs instead of just grabbing the player most thought the Skins would take (Gabbert). There the Skins won all-around, b/c not only did they win on quantity, but quality as well.
Steve Shoup - February 15, 2012
Steve - that last sentence, last paragraph, is dead on
That is the big question, which really focuses the mind. And I don’t know the answer. Notice that if we got Manning, Orton or Garrard, we would undoubtedly (I hope) grab Tannehill (or Foles or Weeden) too – hopefully our young QBOTF. And if we traded up for RG3, we wouldn’t get any other young QB – he would be the young QB. And that would be without our 2013 first round pick to rectify a mistake. All good points working against giving up a lot for RG3. And after all, he has not yet played in the NFL – and a lot can happen. One huge advantage of getting Manning (or Orton) is that we would get to keep all of our picks (except using one for the second tier QB).
Donnio1234 - February 14, 2012
Why stop there?
they should just offer a 1st for Rodgers if Schaub could be had for as little as a 2..
But seriously there is no chance of any of that happening, Manning would of course love to play against the Colts and the Texans are easily the best team in that division. However the Texans won’t dump Schaub and if they did you would be looking at something close to the Bears trade for Cutler I would think.
PJ_21 - February 14, 2012
If they did decide to sign peyton
they cant then ask for a deal simular to cutler because they will have already shown their hand. I would only trade to secure Schaub otherwise we could just wait for him to be released they wont keep both. I think a 2nd round pick is fair for Schaub considering he’s coming off a season ending injury. but has been extremly productive in this system
taylor21 - February 14, 2012
Could we sign Manning
and then turn around and deal him and a 2nd round pick for Schaub?? They have Yates to learn from Manning for a couple years, and we get our QB for the future, who can come in and win right away. We can then draft Blackmon at 6 if he’s still there… Yeah, I know, but I can dream can’t I!!
tmarine17 - February 14, 2012
why wouldn't the Texans just sign Manning themselves?
Steve Shoup - February 14, 2012
I guess they could
but would they have enough money too? If they go this route, they get rid of Schaubs salary, and gain a 2nd round pick. Like I said, it’s a dream…
tmarine17 - February 15, 2012
it would cost them the same amount of money to sign Manning and then trade Schaub
sign and trades just don’t work in the NFL
Steve Shoup - February 15, 2012
As I mentioned earlier, alot of these dominoes will fall before the draft...
It was March 8, Manning’s bonus date, which was the important date to watch. But now, it may be March 17. “The Cardinals owe Kolb a $7 million roster bonus on March 17”
Of course, if Indy ends up keeping Manning, then it would be a whole new ballgame. I still think this is possible, making Luck available (they both have expressed their displeasure to both be on the same team), though EXTREMELY UNLIKELY!
But at least we will know some details very soon.
jgibbsfan1 - February 14, 2012
The chances that Peyton Manning starts for the Texans this year is 0%
Jeff Bernard - February 14, 2012
Irsay wants Peyton to restructure, so he says staying or going is up to Peyton
That is really unfair – it is not up to Manning. It is strictly up to the Colts whether or not to pay Manning the 28 mil. Saying Peyton has a choice is the same non-choice as Shanahan gave Haynesworth. In both cases, the team unconditionally owed the player money, and is trying to convince them that they should agree to something to get that money. I hope Peyton tells them to stick it – pay me or cut me.
Donnio1234 - February 15, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Hogs Haven to post a comment.