Ever think , a;; this talk about manning and Flynn is just a rouse so we can have a better chance at getting RGIII?

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever think , a;; this talk about manning and Flynn
> is just a rouse so we can have a better chance at
> getting RGIII?


no bc the timing makes no sense for that to be the case. manning is a UFA first (within weeks), then Flynn is a FA, then the draft well after. So by the time the draft rolls around we will either have Manning or Flynn, in which case we don't trade up, or we don't, in which case the options are trading up for RG3, taking a lesser QB in the draft, or signing a scrub like Orton or Jason Campbell. When the draft rolls around we will have RG3 as the only top tier option left, or we won't need/want him at all.

Personally I'd rather see us sign Flynn and then draft Tannehill.

That would leave us with a QB competition between Flynn and Moore as well as two very promising developmental guys is Tannehill and Devlin.

The top three get to keep thier jobs.

not sure how promising devlin is. TC fodder at best.
Tannehill is going to take a very high pick, doubt he lasts into the 2d round, or at worst he goes where Andy Dlaton went at the top of the 2d.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so Truth, would you rather have flynn or manning,
> assuming we can have only one and by the time we
> sign manning we won't be more than 60% sure he
> will ever play again at a high level (and even
> then he's got just 2-3 years tops left in him)?


That's an impossible question to answer. None of us know the extent of mannings injury or the actual pace (if any) of his recovery.

I'd have to trust my doctors. If manning could reasonably be expected to be ready for camp at the end of July...he's the choice.

If my doctors can't make that call then manning isn't the choice.

As for Flynn... I'd rather go get RG3.

That's why my ideal resolution to all this is that manning isn't ready to sign in march, that we go get RG3 in the draft, and then add manning closer to camp when he's healthy.

I'm leery of Flynn because there so little to evaluate from where I sit. I won't complain if we go get him because philbin should know if he's the goods or not. I just don't think there's enough info for us fans to decide he's the best option.

Ken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally I'd rather see us sign Flynn and then
> draft Tannehill.
>
> That would leave us with a QB competition between
> Flynn and Moore as well as two very promising
> developmental guys is Tannehill and Devlin.
>
> The top three get to keep thier jobs.


No need to draft a QB if you sign Flynn. He's young and healthy. He'll start. You'd have Moore as a very capable backup.

Spending a high draft pick on a 3rd string qb is means you are either wasting a high draft pick or a ton of money on Flynn.

manning isn't going to wait around till he's fully recovered before wanting to sign. of course a healthy manning is a huge upgrade over anyone else we could get, but there will be no way of knowing when the time comes to sign him (and it's gonna have to be no later than March) whether he will be (1) his old self by Sept; (2) his old self in a year or more; (3) never play at his old level; or (4) never play again.

So we'd need to basically make an educated medical guess (didn't work out so well last time with brees/culpepper) and forego other top tier options if we sign him (it's not realistic to get manning AND RG3 or Flynn). So the way I see it playing out is either:

A. Skip manning and acquire either RG3 or Flynn.

B. Sign manning and take a Tannelhil/Wheedon/Kirk Cousins type late in the first or early in the second after a trade down from 8/9.

It's gonna be one or other. There won't be mixing and matching from among those 2 groups.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> manning isn't going to wait around till he's fully
> recovered before wanting to sign. of course a
> healthy manning is a huge upgrade over anyone else
> we could get, but there will be no way of knowing
> when the time comes to sign him (and it's gonna
> have to be no later than March) whether he will
> be (1) his old self by Sept; (2) his old self in a
> year or more; (3) never play at his old level; or
> (4) never play again.

That all depends. Manning may want to sign the same day he's cut. But if he can't document progress in his recovery AND some team doctor doesn't buy into him being ready this summer then NOBODY is going to give him $15+ mill a year. Theater are going to lowball him or give him a deal that is contingent upon him being on the roster week 1.

If you are Mannning you have to give serious consideration to waiting until you are healthy to sign so you can dictate terms. After all...why would you want to spend all summer with a team and possibly get get because your recovery hit a snag?
>
> So we'd need to basically make an educated medical
> guess (didn't work out so well last time with
> brees/culpepper) and forego other top tier options
> if we sign him (it's not realistic to get manning
> AND RG3 or Flynn). So the way I see it playing out
> is either:


Why is it unrealistic to say we'd roll the dice on manning and the draft his successor? It's the prudent thing to do if you take the risk on him. He's 36...has major health issues...



>
> A. Skip manning and acquire either RG3 or Flynn.
>
> B. Sign manning and take a Tannelhil/Wheedon/Kirk
> Cousins type late in the first or early in the
> second after a trade down from 8/9.
>
> It's gonna be one or other. There won't be mixing
> and matching from among those 2 groups.

So its ok to use a 2nd round pickto hedge your bet on manning but it's not ok to go get a future franchise pick in rg3??

Sorry berk but that makes no sense to me at all.

it makes sense to me, because (1) there are limited resources here, signing manning and making a huge deal to move up to #2 to get RG3 is simply too much invested in $ and draft picks; and (2) as I said yesterday, manning is not going to come to a team that drafted Luck or RG3. Acquiring someone like Tannehill to sit for a few years makes more sense, we are not signing RG3 with the expectation that he not play for 2+ years, and I doubt anyone signs Manning (or he signs with anyone) with the expectation he play at a high level for 1 year and then become the backup.

I suppose we just agree to disagree on this one.

TT. Your actual choice progression is 1) Manning 2) Flynn and 3) Moore.

Everyone else would put that in reverse order because of 1) Manning's health questions (obviously if Manning was fit as a fiddle and you could predict as many remaining years as Favre had when he left Green Bay then Manning would rightfully be number 2), BECAUSE FLYNN HAS ONLY HAD ONE FREAKIN' GAME and 3) because Moore has at least proved that the wheels don't come off the vehicle when he's driving.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it makes sense to me, because (1) there are
> limited resources here, signing manning and making
> a huge deal to move up to #2 to get RG3 is simply
> too much invested in $ and draft picks;

But then why flush a second round pick for a project Qb?

Been there done that...


> and (2) as
> I said yesterday, manning is not going to come to
> a team that drafted Luck or RG3.

Yeah but that was under my scenario of signing manning after the draft.

Your scenario has him signing before the draft. If that happens he has no control over how we address the qb spot in the draft.


Acquiring
> someone like Tannehill to sit for a few years
> makes more sense, we are not signing RG3 with the
> expectation that he not play for 2+ years, and I
> doubt anyone signs Manning (or he signs with
> anyone) with the expectation he play at a high
> level for 1 year and then become the backup.


If I signed manning and drafted rg3 it would be with the expectation that rg3 would serve as understudy for one or two years. Manning would be released at that point or at any point he loses the starting job.

Rg3 is not Andrew luck. He doesn't have that expectation or grooming.

He's a exciting talent but he is farm
Moore like Aaron Rodgers Coming out of college. He has more to learn and a year or two on the bench would benefit him greatly.


>
> I suppose we just agree to disagree on this one.

It happens...

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TT. Your actual choice progression is 1) Manning
> 2) Flynn and 3) Moore.
>



No. My actual progression at this point is manning-RG3-Flynn- Moore.



> Everyone else would put that in reverse order
> because of 1) Manning's health questions
> (obviously if Manning was fit as a fiddle and you
> could predict as many remaining years as Favre had
> when he left Green Bay then Manning would
> rightfully be number 2), BECAUSE FLYNN HAS ONLY
> HAD ONE FREAKIN' GAME and 3) because Moore has at
> least proved that the wheels don't come off the
> vehicle when he's driving.

Nobody, except perhaps you and one or two other posters, think Moore should be our top option.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, he is my first option AFTER RGIII, which,
> BTW, I don't think you were specifically
> mentioning RGIII in the specific portion of your
> specific above TO WHICH I RESPONDED. Okay?
>
> So the proper procedure is for you to say "Well,
> actually, I would prefer so and so." Instead of
> railing about an option that was not in the post
> to which I was responding.
>
> Now, I think Moore should be the top option out of
> those 3 but MY TOP OPTION OVERALL IS RGIII.
>
>
> ------------------------


Railing?

My post was two sentences...yours was two pages!

Practice what you preach.

Besides ...I'm having (typing)this conversation on my iPhone. You are just going to have to live with what you get.

The way I see it;

Manning is not even a consideration...he's simply damaged goods. That alone would make me not take him...we won't know about his health condition until much later so he's a no go, in my mind.

Flynn is THE choice because he will be signed long before the draft happens...either we get him or we don't. Either way, the draft will not be a consideration in choosing him or not.

Griffin is the next choice...but will be too expensive, IMHO.

That leaves the other guys and I think Tannehill is the best package of skills.

I would set my sights on signing Flynn as our primary option along with Moore as the secondary option...Tannehill is the third string guy and Devlin has to earn his spot if he wants to stay on the team by beating out Tannehill.

Even if I had to draft Flynn at #8 or 9...it would ensure that we sign more than one option and have options at the position going forward.

Options are a good thing to have, IMHO.