The Peyton Manning Discussion thread

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by skydog71

Oh man, Eagles were bad example. I know how those VY threads go... OK, let's say we are talking about the Patriots. In 4 years, Brady will be 37 (Manning will be 38). If given the opportunity, should the Patriots draft Luck and let him sit on the bench for 3 years?

Also probably not the best example bc they actually did draft Mallett and I think they're going to treat him like they did Cassell (and how they would handle your hypothetical situation). Basically, they would draft Luck no question. When the time came, if Brady was still playing at a high level, they'd shop Luck to everyone and their mother in a trade and wouldn't think twice about it.

How about the Packers? I think the Colts work bc they actually could have the worse record without Peyton... don't think that would be true with any of these other teams.

[skydog71]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Also probably not the best example bc they actually did draft Mallett and I think they're going to treat him like they did Cassell (and how they would handle your hypothetical situation). Basically, they would draft Luck no question. When the time came, if Brady was still playing at a high level, they'd shop Luck to everyone and their mother in a trade and wouldn't think twice about it. How about the Packers? I think the Colts work bc they actually could have the worse record without Peyton... don't think that would be true with any of these other teams.

Yeah, I guess they could always deal Luck and keep Brady.

I don't know, ever since we ran McNair out of town to make room for VY, I've had a hard time understanding why teams would spend a top 3 pick on a QB so they can ride the bench for several years. I can see maybe picking up a "project" in the later rounds and letting him mature on the bench, but if you are drafting somebody #1 overall, they should be good enough to start their first year. Sam Bradford and Matt Ryan did fairly well in their rookie seasons. And even if they struggle a bit that first year like Peyton or McNabb, there's a reason your team was picking in the top 3, and it's unlikely the play of your rookie QB is going to be the determining factor in whether or not your team wins the Super Bowl or not.

Now things are different if your aging Pro Bowl QB is talking about retirement and an elite QB slips to you at #24 (ie - Aaron Rodgers).

[24]

Trade the Pick and give Manning A shot. I'd take a couple of 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks over a single first round pick any day of the week. Bill Belichek has been using that strategy for years and its worked out pretty well for him and the Pats. Peyton Manning is the heart and soul of the franchise and I Believe that one more Title locks him in As the Greatest QB to ever play the game. Thats the only thing he is missing from his Career, Multiple Titles

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by skydog71

Yeah, I guess they could always deal Luck and keep Brady. I don't know, ever since we ran McNair out of town to make room for VY, I've had a hard time understanding why teams would spend a top 3 pick on a QB so they can ride the bench for several years. I can see maybe picking up a "project" in the later rounds and letting him mature on the bench, but if you are drafting somebody #1 overall, they should be good enough to start their first year. Sam Bradford and Matt Ryan did fairly well in their rookie seasons. And even if they struggle a bit that first year like Peyton or McNabb, there's a reason your team was picking in the top 3, and it's unlikely the play of your rookie QB is going to be the determining factor in whether or not your team wins the Super Bowl or not. Now things are different if your aging Pro Bowl QB is talking about retirement and an elite QB slips to you at #24 (ie - Aaron Rodgers).

I actually disagree with this... pretty strongly. Best case scenario in most situations is for QBs not to start right away. Ryan (and Flacco... and Sanchez) had a TEAM around them that had a whole lot to do with their early success. Bradford, like Peyton was in a situation where they just told him to air it out no matter what. I'd much rather have seasoning for the rookies. For the few you just named (and I'll throw Freeman and Stafford on that list to for ya) I'll give you Brady, McNabb, Rodgers, Schaub, Rivers, Romo, Hasselbeck, and technically Eli and Big Ben also. Today's society is in too much of a rush to see results. These kids need to adjust to the game.

BTW, McNair's situation was much deeper than just making room for VY. I'm sure they would've rather had him around to mentor Young (and God knows he needed it). But with that said, McNair didn't have much left. For as much as he did on the Ravens, he gets too much credit. His stats were pretty bad both years. He made some big plays in the 4th qtr of games (that were usually close bc he didn't do much before then) but had a horrible playoff game in his first year and was bad or injured most of his second year. It may have just been time for him, but he's a competitor so he's not going to see that.

[untrugby]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I actually disagree with this... pretty strongly. Best case scenario in most situations is for QBs not to start right away. Ryan (and Flacco... and Sanchez) had a TEAM around them that had a whole lot to do with their early success. Bradford, like Peyton was in a situation where they just told him to air it out no matter what. I'd much rather have seasoning for the rookies. For the few you just named (and I'll throw Freeman and Stafford on that list to for ya) I'll give you Brady, McNabb, Rodgers, Schaub, Rivers, Romo, Hasselbeck, and technically Eli and Big Ben also. Today's society is in too much of a rush to see results. These kids need to adjust to the game.

Its 50/50 whether its good to start a QB their rookie season or have them sit. Brady, Romo, Schuab, and Hasselbeck arent very good examples since they were drafted to be backups and eli, big ben and mcnabb did end up starting by the end of their rookie year. A lot of this starting early was brought on by the huge contracts the top picks signed and when youre paying a guy 15+ mil a year you expect to get some production from them. Now that its a set scale we might see more sit a few years. I think it really depends on the mental makeup of the QB whether he can start day or wait a year or 2

[skydog71]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I actually disagree with this... pretty strongly. Best case scenario in most situations is for QBs not to start right away. Ryan (and Flacco... and Sanchez) had a TEAM around them that had a whole lot to do with their early success. Bradford, like Peyton was in a situation where they just told him to air it out no matter what. I'd much rather have seasoning for the rookies. For the few you just named (and I'll throw Freeman and Stafford on that list to for ya) I'll give you Brady, McNabb, Rodgers, Schaub, Rivers, Romo, Hasselbeck, and technically Eli and Big Ben also. Today's society is in too much of a rush to see results. These kids need to adjust to the game. BTW, McNair's situation was much deeper than just making room for VY. I'm sure they would've rather had him around to mentor Young (and God knows he needed it). But with that said, McNair didn't have much left. For as much as he did on the Ravens, he gets too much credit. His stats were pretty bad both years. He made some big plays in the 4th qtr of games (that were usually close bc he didn't do much before then) but had a horrible playoff game in his first year and was bad or injured most of his second year. It may have just been time for him, but he's a competitor so he's not going to see that.

I agree that McNair didn't have a lot in the tank when he got to Baltimore, but that brings up another interesting scenario. What if instead of drafting Ngata, the Ravens decided to draft a replacement for McNair? And let him sit on the bench for a couple of years instead of drafting Flacco in 2008? For example:

Scenario A:
2006 = Ravens draft Ngata
2008 = Ravens draft Flacco
2008 = Flacco starts at QB

Scenario B:
2006 = Ravens draft Cutler
2008 = Cutler starts at QB
2008 = Ravens draft Pro Bowl DT

Now I know this isn't an apples to apples comparison, but in both scenarios, you've got good QB's and pro bowl DT's. However, in scenario A, you get 2 extra years of having a pro bowl DT.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by skydog71

I agree that McNair didn't have a lot in the tank when he got to Baltimore, but that brings up another interesting scenario. What if instead of drafting Ngata, the Ravens decided to draft a replacement for McNair? And let him sit on the bench for a couple of years instead of drafting Flacco in 2008? For example: Scenario A: 2006 = Ravens draft Ngata 2008 = Ravens draft Flacco 2008 = Flacco starts at QB Scenario B: 2006 = Ravens draft Cutler 2008 = Cutler starts at QB 2008 = Ravens draft Pro Bowl DT Now I know this isn't an apples to apples comparison, but in both scenarios, you've got good QB's and pro bowl DT's. However, in scenario A, you get 2 extra years of having a pro bowl DT.

I don't think Cutler was on the board when they picked but could be wrong on that. Thanking my lucky stars now, but I don't think BB would've passed on Cutler. With that said, that was the year Lewis made national stink about not having the big bodies in front of him so Ngata was really the ONLY pick bc Ray had to be happy.

BTW, at the time they hadn't given up on Boller. They just thought McNair was a better option for a potential SB team. Even when they did draft Flacco, the plan was for Boller to start with Troy Smith being the backup and Flacco as the 3rd stringer. Boller got hurt, Smith got sick at the worse possible time and the rest is history.

I'll go back to the other "what if" though. What if McNair stayed in TEN and started his last two years there (or one of them and stuck around as a VY back up in the other). VY could've been a perfect McNair clone, may have been more mature being directly under his wing, and the relationship between VY and Fisher could've been bridged.

[KSUowls]

Quote: Originally Posted by skydog71

Oh man, Eagles were bad example. I know how those VY threads go... OK, let's say we are talking about the Patriots. In years Brady will be 37 (Manning will be 38). If given the opportunity, should the Patriots draft Luck and let him sit on the bench for 3 years?

Not exactly true. Brady is 34 right now and Manning is 35 so 4 years from today they would be 38 and 39 :P

The real issue is that this hypothetical calls for Manning to be hurt and miss the entire season. So that means he will be 36 when the 2012 draft comes around and for the 2012 season which would be Luck's rookie year. Now, history suggests that QBs retire around the age of 38 which would leave Manning just 2 years away from that threshold while coming back from a major injury in one of them.

The historic trend for quarterbacks seems to be they greatly benefit from a few years of seasoning. There are instances where they can step in day 1 and succeed, but those are situations where a team had some pieces already there and the young qb can learn without having to have everything on his shoulders. An opportunity to draft a guy with loads of potential and have him learn from one of the best ever seems like a great opportunity.