Peyton Manning, Super Bowls, Pete Carroll, and Mini-Dynasties

by Davis Hsu on Feb 21, 2012 12:00 PM PST in Building a Champion

This article will not change your mind on what you think of Peyton Manning to the Seahawks. If you want him, you will read this article and say "so what?" If you don't want him, you may add a few more points to your stance.

Hopefully, this article can explore some NFL history, championship models, and more of Pete Carroll's philosophy. I know Danny, who is the reason why I write here, and whose opinion I respect, thinks it would be foolish to not explore Peyton Manning. I get that. My feel is that most Seahawks fan agree with Danny. This is a respectful counter-point.

On the record - I do not support Peyton Manning to the Seahawks. I do not support it because of age, fit, future QB development, injury history, team identity and money. I also do not support it because my interpretation of NFL history tells me that a Super Bowl winner is overwhelmingly a team in the midst of a run of sustained success. This sustained success, or 'mini-dynasty', is marked by multiple Super Bowl appearances and exact continuity at the quarterback and head coach position.

I want a young, drafted quarterback and I do not mind if the Seahawks draft one in Round 2 in 2012 and another one in Round 1 in 2013. I am a draft guy for many reasons I won't list here. Anyway, on to the article.

The media is rumoring Peyton Manning to the Seahawks. Let me throw some thoughts into that conversation. My first thought on that is this: no QB has won a Super Bowl with two different teams. Ever. The closest thing was Kurt Warner. My second thought: Super Bowl winning is overwhelmingly done by Mini-Dynasties.

I have a hard time seeing Peyton Manning forming a mini-dynasty with a new team at his age. John Elway was with his same team when he won those two late Super Bowls. We can leave the neck thing out of it, but let's talk about mini-dynasties.

THE MINI-DYNASTY

A mini-dynasty, as it pertains to this article, is a team with at least two Super Bowl appearances in four years. What I found, is that a vast majority of the time, mini-dynasties have the same head coach and same QB (eight out of ten times).

The idea of a dynasty is important to Seahawks fans because it's a big part of identity and personality the team's head coach espouses. It's the core goal - more important than anything, really. It's what 'Win Forever' is based on. Pete Carroll tells this story on his first win as an NFL head coach, on the road with the Jets at Buffalo - and the inception of the "Win Forever" concept.

"I noticed for the first time all of Buffalo's division championship banners on display- and it dawned on me that, while we had just won a game, since Coach Levy had been there, they had put up winning season after winning season, division championship after division championship. There must have been six or seven of them up there. And as I stood there congratulating myself on my brand new 1-0 record as an NFL head coach, it hit me: now that's success."

I did a study on the last 46 Super Bowl Winners and the all 92 Super Bowl Participants. You can see my chart here.

You know how Pete Carroll says 80-85% of the time, the team that wins the turnover battle, wins the game? How about this one - 80-85% of the time - the team that wins the Super Bowl appeared, or will appear, in another Super Bowl within four years - with the exact same head coach - and the exact same quarterback.

Most Seahawk fans would trade their right arm for one Super Bowl Ring. As for Pete Carroll - I think one is not enough. Additionally, I believe Pete has concluded that getting one Super Bowl ring typically involves being part of a larger sustained movement of success. Meaning - if you get one ring - typically you appear in at least two championship games. Again, most Super Bowls are won by mini-dynasties.

How can I say this another way - Super Bowl winners, a great majority of the time (80-85%), come with these three components:

(1) Another appearance in the Super Bowl within four years (past or future).
(2) Same Head Coach in those appearances.
(3) Same Quarterback in those appearances.

If you look at the chart - every line that is colored in means that team appeared in more than one Super Bowl in a four-year period. There is a lot of color on that chart - especially on the left side (the winning team side).

HISTORY

Here is a complete list of all historical Super Bowl/Coach/QB pairings (Mini-Dynasties):

(1) PACKERS - Super Bowl I and II: Vince Lombardi and QB Bart Starr (what more needs to be said?).
(2) CHIEFS - Super Bowl I and IV: Hank Stram and QB Len Dawson (They lost I to Green Bay and won Super Bowl IV).
(3) VIKINGS - Super Bowl IV, VIII, IX, XI: Bud Grant and QB Fran Tarkenton (They lost all four - but they were still a dynasty).

Pete Carroll writes about Bud Grant, whom he coached under, in Win Forever:

"One of the coaches I'm most proud to say I worked under was Bud Grant of the Minnesota Vikings. Coach Grant is the 3rd winningest professional football coach in history...his intuitive powers truly amazed me and I remain in awe of those abilities to this day."

(4) COWBOYS - Super Bowl V, VI, X, XII, XIII: Tom Landry and QB Roger Staubach (They won two and lost three; five appearances in nine years - impressive).
(5) DOLPHINS - Super Bowl IV, VII, VIII: Don Shula and QB Bob Griese/Earl Morrall (appeared in three straight Super Bowls, lost the first and won the next two)
(6) STEELERS - Super Bowl IX, X, XIII, XIV: Chuck Noll and QB Terry Bradshaw (appeared in four Super Bowls in six years, won all four).
(7) RAIDERS - Super Bowl XV, XVIII: Tom Flores and QB Jim Plunkett (dynasty somewhat related to Madden/Stabler of XI).
(8) 49ERS - Super Bowl XVI, XIX, XXIII, XXIV: Bill Walsh (3)/ George Seifert (1) and QB Joe Montana (I excluded Seifert/Young in XXIX but no doubt that win was related to these four).

Pete Carroll in Win Forever on Bill Walsh:

"Often, when I left his office, I felt the same way I had with Coach Grant in Minnesota: privileged to pick the brain of one of the great minds in my profession. It was though Coach Walsh let me in on his professional secrets."

On George Seifert: (a young Pete Carroll would visit Seifert before Seifert was head coach):

"George would let me sit in his office and ask questions about the NFL, the philosophy of former 49ers head coach, Bill Walsh, and overall defense"

(9) BRONCOS- Super Bowl XXI, XXII, XXIV: Dan Reeves and QB John Elway (these were all losses but three SB appearances in four years is impressive).
(10) GIANTS- Super Bowl XXI, XXV: Bill Parcells and QB Phil Simms (yes, Hostetler helped too).
(11) BILLS- Super Bowl XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XVIII: Marv Levy and QB Jim Kelly (all losses - but this is the team that inspired Win Forever!).
(12) COWBOYS- Super Bowl XXVII, XXVIII, XXX: Jimmy Johnson (2)/ Barry Switzer (1) and QB Troy Aikman (a true dynasty).
(13) PACKERS- Super Bowl XXXI, XXXII: Mike Holmgren and QB Brett Favre (won the first and lost the second).
(14) BRONCOS- Super Bowl XXXII, XXXIII: Mike Shanahan and QB John Elway (Elway finally got his, twice).
(15) PATRIOTS- Super Bowl XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLII, XLVI: Bill Belichick and QB Tom Brady (you know the story).
(16) STEELERS- Super Bowl XL, XLIII, XLV: Bill Cowher (1)/ Mike Tomlin (2) and QB Ben Roethlisberger (you know the story).
(17) GIANTS- Super Bowl XLII, XLVI: Tom Coughlin and QB Eli Manning (interesting that Coughlin and Belichick were with Parcells).

ODDS AND ENDS

I will start in present day and move back in time in this section.

(1) COLTS- Super Bowl XLI, XLIV: Tony Dungy (1)/Jim Caldwell (1) and QB Peyton Manning (seems like Peyton was the bigger key here).
(2) RAMS- Super Bowl XXXIV, XXXVI: Dick Vermeil (1)/Mike Martz (1) and QB Kurt Warner (again, seems like Warner the tie).
(3) REDSKINS- Super Bowl XVII, XVIII, XXII, XXVI: Joe Gibbs and QBs Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien (this is the main case where a good head coach actually won a Super Bowl with three different QBs - perhaps hurts the argument that Pete Carroll can't win the Super Bowl with two different QBs - but it does not sway me).
(4) DOLPHINS- Super Bowl XVII, XIX: Don Shula and QB David Woodley and Dan Marino (again, another case of same coach - different QBs - both appearances in losing efforts).
(5) COLTS (Baltimore) - Super Bowl III, V: QBs Johnny Unitas and Earl Morrall - coaches were Don Shula in III and Don MacCaferty (same QBs, different coaches)

Based on these last 22 mini-dynasties, the coach is very important, but the tie-in of the same QB seems a bit more important. Johnny Unitas, Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Joe Montana, Troy Aikman and John Elway all appeared in Super Bowls (they were with their same team, I need to remind) with different coaches.

Joe Gibbs and Don Shula were both able to get to the Super Bowl with different QBs within a four year period. When you think of coaches like Jim Caldwell, Barry Switzer and Mike Martz getting to Super Bowls - I am going to swing the way of the QB as being the bigger factor. Not that the Head Coach is not gigantic. Again, more often than not, the Head Coach and QB are paired in multiple appearances.

ONE-OFF SUPER BOWL WINNERS

(1) JETS- Super Bowl III - Joe Namath.
(2) RAIDERS- Super Bowl XI - John Madden and Ken Stabler - some might tie this to the 1980/83 Raider Mini-Dynasty.
(3) BEARS- Super Bowl XX - Mike Ditka and Jim McMahon - what a great team.
(4) 49ERS- Super Bowl XXIX - George Seifert and Steve Young - 5 years a part from Seifert/Montana, so this one could be part of the big dynasty.
(5) RAVENS- Super Bowl XXXV - Brian Billick and Trent Dilfer.
(6) BUCS- Super Bowl XXXVII - Jon Gruden and Brad Johnson.

Benefit of the Doubt:

I think Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees could both appear in another Super Bowl - so even though, so far, they are officially "one offs"- I can see them paired with another SB appearance each before they retire. Can't you?

CONCLUSION

Super Bowls are overwhelmingly won by mini-dynasties. Those dynasties - with few exceptions - are represented in the Super Bowl by the exact same quarterback, and to a slightly lesser extent, the same head coach. History says that the Super Bowl winner is (over 80% of the time) a team that visits the Super Bowl more than one time and brings with it a story of strong continuity at the head coach position and extremely strong continuity at the quarterback position.

More succinctly - one conclusion to draw from the research above is that rings are a product of continuity at quarterback and head coach, which leads to sustained success and is marked by multiple Super Bowl appearances.

Post script: Protecting Peyton

Do you honestly think the Seahawks can make multiple Super Bowl appearances with Peyton Manning?

I like the Seahawks offensive line. I think in the next few years it can be an above-average offensive line - especially in the running game. As a pass protecting offensive line will it be strong enough to protect an older quarterback with injury and mobility issues? I have my doubts.

This is not an indictment against the Seahawks' offensive linemen. I think Max Unger and Russell Okung are good. Robert Gallery is older, and John Moffitt and James Carpenter are a work in progress and coming off injury. Breno Giacomini has been a great pick-up off the Green Bay practice squad - but no one is predicting Pro Bowls for Breno. To be honest, the only line I would trust to protect Peyton is the 2005 Seahawks line.

Think about the beating Kurt Warner took his last year in the NFL- getting brutally concussed to the point he couldn't see correctly for weeks - prompting his retirement. Think about the hits Brett Favre took his last two years in the NFL. His last year was just sad - his body was broken. Even in the his amazing 2009 season - and the Vikings should have beat the Saints - do you remember the licks he took to his ankle? Favre took a lot of brutal shots in those playoffs.

When a quarterback is 37-41 years old, their body can't bounce back in-game or in-week like it did before, from the NFL punishment. Without question, a quarterback's mobility is hampered with age as well.

After Justin Tuck hit Brady in the last Super Bowl and hurt that left shoulder, Brady wasn't quite as accurate as he was prior. Think about the beating the 49ers put on Eli Manning in that amazing recent NFC Championship game. The 49ers hit him 20 times and he kept getting back up. Justin Smith, Aldon Smith, and the linebackers laying wood. That being said, Eli is 31 years old with no known injury history.

Again, this is not an indictment against the Seahawks offensive line. I don't think they suck. I don't think they are bad. I also don't think they are the 2005 Seahawks - and Matt Hasselbeck was about 31 yrs old back then. I am not advocating the Seahawks needing to get an offensive line as good as the 2005 Seahawks either, but it seems to me that they need a QB that can move and absorb the inevitable hits when they come - along with playing great football of course. This is not easy to find though, apparently.

How many NFL offensive lines can carry an older quarterback through 16 regular season games and 3-4 playoff games without injury? I can't stand Tarvaris Jackson as the Seahawks QB - why? Because he has not shown the ability to lead a late game field goal drive. The Seahawks know he isn't that great. They also know that he is somewhat mobile, though he doesn't move in the pocket like he is capable of, and he is physically tough to withstand beatings. His toughness is probably his best trait. Not a Super Bowl winning trait - but the trait Pete and John mention a lot.

The Seahawks line could do a wonderful job for most of the game versus a San Francisco, a Baltimore, a Pittsburgh, a New York Giants - but it only takes a one or a couple of big hits per game - and those hits will come - it's just part of the game. I have a hard time envisioning Peyton Manning lasting all the way to the Super Bowl behind the Seahawks line, and frankly - behind most offensive lines.

Tweet Comment 78 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Trust

I completely trust that PC will continue the upwards momentum of the ‘Hawks, and as such I trust in whatever QB move they make. I will say, personally, I completely believe TJ is good enough, with the team being built, and with a complete offseason, to not prevent (for those that will of course say I am giving him too much faith) the ’Hawks from contending for a playoff spot and subsequently a shot at the big game. Holy hell, I can’t wait for the FA and draft to commence!

by Seatown66 on Feb 21, 2012 12:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Two quick things

no QB has won a Super Bowl with two different teams. Ever.

Earl Morrall won super bowls playing an active role during the season for two teams (Dolphins, Colts). He did not start in both super bowls, admittedly, but without him, it is unlikely either team would have won their respective super bowls.

I agree strongly with your general philosophy of drafting a quarterback to succeed in the long term. And yet, I also believe it would be sheer idiocy to disregard Manning; to decide against him without first considering and assessing the idea. Typically, teams do not let elite quarterbacks walk. These are very unusual circumstances, wherein the Colts have convinced themselves that there is a better way to man the position (with Luck). They are wrong. Manning is one of the three best quarterbacks active and one of the five best quarterbacks in history. To refuse to explore an opportunity to add him to our team, for no cost in draft capital, would be sheer lunacy.

by pacificsands on Feb 21, 2012 12:30 PM PST reply actions

That's a special case, too, though

since those were both Don Shula teams.

"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 21, 2012 4:23 PM PST up reply actions

I find it interesting that you exclude the dynasty that would most connect with our Seahawks...

“49ERS – Super Bowl XVI, XIX, XXIII, XXIV: Bill Walsh (3)/ George Seifert (1) and QB Joe Montana (I excluded Seifert/Young in XXIX but no doubt that win was related to these four).”

Of course it was. And it was the one 2 time SB winner with different head coaches and qb’s that ironically most pave the way for us both in regard to Head Coach and QB.

First, Peyton Manning trumps QB’s in general. Of course no QB’s have won a SB with two teams— because winning one is hard enough to do. You need great (stable, mostly) coaching and a great QB. But then again, very very few QB’s who have won SB’s are on par with Peyton Manning.

The second dynamic, the “mini-dynasty” factor of having only 1 QB win. Sure, that’s because generally teams only have one QB who is great at a time, with a fall off after. Interestingly, SF with two HoF QB’s managed to win with different QB’s. So why not follow that model, throwing in QBOTF for the 4th and 5th straight SB wins AFTER Peyton’s three in a row.

Also, wins 4 and 5 will happen with a different Head Coach, because Pete will retire the greatest NFL coach ever after 3 straight SB wins in an era of parity, so we’re going to have to acknowledge that while Pete is paving the road for long term success, he probably isn’t going to be here through the entire range of mini-dynasty anyway.

Also of note, we don’t know the upside of our OL, but Peyton played well for a long time behind one that was much much worse than our current version, and without the upside. By your estimation, given the speed and power of today’s DL in general, NO QB over the age of 30 or without jets for legs can play in this league, because everyone gives up some sacks. I think we’d give up less than most, to be honest, between our already established run game, our willingness to keep a TE home at times, and Peyton’s ability to adjust at the line. I think we’re as safe as anywhere for him, and mini-dynasty or not, I mean, IT’S PEYTON MANNING we’re talking about. Not Kurt Warner. Not a 40 year old Favre, or a dilapidated Namath, or whomever else. PEYTON MANNING. First ballot HoF with a legitimate argument that he’s the best QB of all time.

I’ll start my hope for a mini-dynasty with that, thank you. Not some yet-to-be-discovered QBOTF who will start in year 1? 2? in a year or two or three?!? How old will Pete be for this mini-dynasty to get going, anyway?!??

I've put away the whiskey and the chainsaw and gone responsible. I'd like to say "Danny Kelly made me do it!" but that would be a lie. I chose to shave, put on a suit and tie and pretend I'm more important than I really am...

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 21, 2012 12:31 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

We also need to factor in that Peyton's presence will have the refs just waiting to throw flags for 'late hits'.

by bewrong on Feb 21, 2012 2:54 PM PST up reply actions

The continuity is greater than the coaching change makes it seem

because the coaching change actually changed very little — it was a seamless transition. (Same with Dungy/Caldwell with the Colts, though I have to think Dungy would have been better able to cope with losing Manning than Caldwell was.)

"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 21, 2012 4:25 PM PST up reply actions

Like Holmgren/Mora?

Now that was a great coaching dynasty! ok atleast the first half was great…

by Oliudyen on Feb 21, 2012 4:44 PM PST up reply actions

And if the right replacement for Pete happens, the same could be said here.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 21, 2012 7:17 PM PST up reply actions

Also... Peyton Manning KNOWS no QB has ever won a SB in two places.

I wouldn’t be suprised if he WANTS to leave Indy, just to have a chance to accomplish that feat. His perspective and knowledge of the game both in game and historically tells me he would want that chance…

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 21, 2012 12:34 PM PST reply actions

Bravo!

That was an awesome read!

by nickfru1 on Feb 21, 2012 12:52 PM PST reply actions

I think 5 years ago I would have really wanted Peyton Manning and begged the Hawks to make a move like that.

Today, I am probably against it. It’s too risky and those moves just haven’t worked in the NFL like they might in another sport.

However, if Seattle DID sign Manning, I’d think, “Hey, that’s pretty cool.” and I’d just roll with it and be excited that we did have a Hall of Fame QB for the next 2+ years. But I don’t think that it would exponentially help us win a Super Bowl in that time frame while I do think it could harm the team in 3+ years.

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Feb 21, 2012 12:53 PM PST reply actions

The only risk is money

…and, well, potentially curbing any further development from TJax.

by WUWU on Feb 21, 2012 2:19 PM PST up reply actions

Development from Tjax....weird

Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters

by Corax --Nevermore-- on Feb 21, 2012 4:22 PM PST up reply actions

Ok but....

What do you think about Mario Williams?
Could he be a “Piece”?

by nickfru1 on Feb 21, 2012 12:59 PM PST reply actions

Yes

For a reasonable price.

by Aztecs on Feb 21, 2012 1:28 PM PST up reply actions

Reasonable Price

Anything under $100M over 6 years.

by SeahawkNMD on Feb 21, 2012 2:13 PM PST up reply actions

Reasonable contract offer

is 5 years $70M with $40M guaranteed and a team optional 6th year at $18M. Why? The current franchise tender for a DE is $10.6M. That would work out to about $53M if taken over 5 years. The $22.9M number that keeps getting thrown around is as high as it is only because Houston franchised him last year instead of working out a long term deal. Anyone in the free market that offers much more than that is just setting themselves up for future cap hell. The stability of the guarantee is the lure, not the total dollar amount.

The 6yr/$100M offer, if balanced across the 6 years, would result in 7% of 2012’s entire cap being spent on a DE that just turned 27. I like Mario Williams a lot, but 6yr/$100M is a crazy large amount of money. Granted, somone may pay it, but I don’t want him at that price.

by Aztecs on Feb 21, 2012 5:03 PM PST up reply actions

Favre vs Manning

Not to take anything away from New Orleans and their eventual superbowl ring, but I thought a few of the refs calls could have gone Favres way, and he probably would have another ring if they had. Both teams were closely matched.

by AlaskaHawk on Feb 21, 2012 1:18 PM PST reply actions

Gotta agree

Vegas always has their way though!

by SEA2HNL on Feb 22, 2012 2:00 AM PST up reply actions

Bringing him in doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the PC movement

Manning isn’t going to “buy in”. He will want things done his way and Cable can go to hell if he thinks different.
The guy was great and can probably still be good, but I’m not sure that its the right thing for us right now. I think if we stay on track we will be better off three years from now without him.

I get why people are changing to their real names, but most people know me as STUFR. In fact, if you called me by my given name at work, you would just confuse most people there. So I comfortably say yes, my name is STUFR.

by stufr on Feb 21, 2012 1:24 PM PST reply actions

In my mind, this is the only thing in the way of Manning coming to Seattle - he probably won't buy in to PC's culture...

…and if he’s not ‘all in’ I wouldn’t want him here.

As far as the historical argument, it carries zero weight and means absolutely nothing. Every year something happens in the NFL that has never happened before. The league simply isn’t that old. A thousand years from now that argument might mean something.

What happened or didn’t happen in the past has no bearing on the desirability of Manning coming to Seattle. He makes history, won’t be constained by it.

As far as Seattle being better in three years without him, what about those three years? If Manning comes to Seattle, buys in, and gets his arm in shape, Seattle will contend every year Peyton is healthy. In the meantime, PC continues to build the team and groom Manning’s successor. I just don’t see how that’s a problem (again, if Peyton truly buys in to PC and everything Seattle has going for it).

If Seattle has a promising young QB in his second year, I’d feel different (and if Portis is good enough to start in 2012, I’d rather see him under center than Manning) as Manning would be blocking the development of that QB. But I don’t see that guy on the roster, nor in this draft. Even if Tannehill gets drafted (the best prospect that might be available at 11/12) it would be ideal for him to sit for the first two or three years before he’s called upon to start. Even more so for any other QB drafted this year.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs

As someone already pointed out, Manning's availability is a rare fluke (as is the availability of Williams) and Seattle should take advantage...

…or at least try.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 1:56 PM PST up reply actions

I just don't think he will buy in and he will stunt the growth of whoever we bring in

Mostly just based on playing and practice time. Also, most reports say that young guys don’t learn well from him because no one sees the game the way he can.
If my assumtions are true then you have two scenarios in three years, both have manning retired. One has us starting over the QB search and the other has us starting a dynasty with our new 25 year old all star.

by stufr on Feb 21, 2012 1:57 PM PST up reply actions

I understand the 'buy in' concern: I share it, and completely agree. But I don't understand your other point.

How would signing Manning for the next 2 or 3 years stunt the growth of a future QB with Seattle? It’s not the responsibility of the starting QB to ‘mentor’ or coach the other QBs on the team. Other people are paid to do that. PC has overall responsibility for all positions and all development.

If signing Manning means ignoring the position for the next couple of years, I would agree that that would be bad. But just because Indy did it, doesn’t mean Seattle would. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Seattle drafted a guy in rounds 1 or 2, and then another guy deeper in the draft AND sign Manning. They need a starting QB, and a back-up (or development guy if Portis has graduated to the number 2 spot).

Bottom line, it’s PC’s responsibility for the current and future roster, and the development of all the young guys, and all a veteran presence can do is help (if they so choose) or by their example. They can’t do any harm – only the head coach can do that.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 2:05 PM PST up reply actions

The problem is that Aaron Rodgers is the exception

I’m having a hard time coming up with anyone else who has developed on the bench while a dominant QB was starting. Young doesn’t count because he developed elseware.

by stufr on Feb 21, 2012 2:08 PM PST up reply actions

Well, if that's the problem, the solution would seem to be to NEVER have an elite QB - because nobody can develop while he is on the roster.

See, that just doesn’t make any sense. Besides, you saw an example of it right here in Matt Hasselbeck.

Tom Brady is a famous example. Tony Romo as well. There are countless examples (actually, it is the norm) for successful QBs to take a few years before becoming really good. Elway and Marino started day one – those are the exceptions.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

See, the thing, every situation we are considering is unique...

…and each of them will play out differently. You have the Cam Newtons who surprised everyone with his first-year success, and you will have sure things go down the toilet (the Carrs, Alex Smiths, Leinarts, etc.)

There is no one way to get a QB and be successful. Sometimes a FA does it, sometimes a traded guy, whatever.

Favre’s first year with the Vikings was phenomenal – what Viking fan would have missed it? Same with us and the win over NO in the play-offs.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I agree

I would love every minute of it. And hope I am completely unfounded about my fear of moving past him.

by stufr on Feb 21, 2012 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Plus I have coveted a young starter to be drafted by the Seahawks for over 20 years now

Its my turn

by stufr on Feb 21, 2012 2:25 PM PST up reply actions

I didn't say successfull QBs taking a couple years to develop

I meant developing QBs while there is an Elite starter playing. Thats the part that isn’t the norm. All your examples are guys who developed behind average at best QBs

by stufr on Feb 21, 2012 2:22 PM PST up reply actions

Why wouldn't he buy in

Once he is booted off his team, and with recovering from an injury, he is going to be much more humble than before. It is a totally different situation, and he will know that if he doesn’t perform or doesn’t get along with the new team, he will be shown the door.

by AlaskaHawk on Feb 21, 2012 2:53 PM PST up reply actions

No guaranteed money means no job security.

by bewrong on Feb 21, 2012 2:59 PM PST up reply actions

We (and there are several of us who share this concern) going on Manning's modis operandi from the past.

Not so much a diva – in my opinion, nothing like Favre, for instance. Only that he ran things on offense in Indy – period. And it worked for them, in that Indy won something like 10+ games a season over like nine or ten of them.

What we don’t know is what Peyton will demand now. Whatever it is, he will get it, somewhere. Some of us just don’t think it will be here in Seattle, as PC wouldn’t/shouldn’t change his culture for anybody.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 4:11 PM PST up reply actions

Peyton's insistance on his role as the "on field OC"

Is why he has only one ring, in my opinion. Doesn’t work so well in the post season when matched against the better defenses and offenses able to keep up with the defense the Colts had; due in part to the cap situation his own salary put them in. He got a lucky break in his SB year, in that the Pats had a down year.

He may not be a Diva like Favre, but he does strike me as all ego and business.

by GnarlyHawk on Feb 21, 2012 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I would say that maybe THIS had more to do with the Colts not winning than did Peyton's being "On field OC."

You’ll notice some VERY GOOD 1st rounders early, and some not-so-good ones later. And injuries to several of those high picks also played a huge factor. It isn’t Peyton’s fault the Polian’s got worse at drafting as time went on…

2000 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 28 28 Rob Morris Linebacker Brigham Young
2 28 59 Marcus Washington Linebacker Auburn
3 29 91 David Macklin Cornerback Penn State
4 28 122 Josh Williams Defensive Tackle Michigan
5 9 138 Matt Johnson Center Brigham Young
7 29 235 Rob Renes Defensive Tackle Michigan
7 32 238 Rodregis Brooks Cornerback Alabama-Birmingham
[edit]2001 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 30 30 Reggie Wayne Wide Receiver Miami
2 6 37 Idrees Bashir Safety Memphis
3 29 91 Cory Bird Safety Virginia Tech
4 23 118 Ryan Diem Offensive Tackle Northern Illinois
5 21 152 Raymond Walls Cornerback Southern Mississippi
6 30 193 Jason Doering Safety Wisconsin
7 20 220 Rick DeMulling Guard Idaho State
[edit]2002 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 11 11 Dwight Freeney Defensive End Syracuse
2 10 42 Larry Tripplett Defensive Tackle Washington
3 9 74 Joseph Jefferson Safety Western Kentucky
4 8 106 David Thornton Linebacker North Carolina
6 10 182 David Pugh Defensive Tackle Virginia Tech
6 11 183 James Lewis Defensive Back Miami
6 32 204 Brian Allen Running Back Stanford
7 9 220 Josh Mallard Defensive End Georgia
[edit]2003 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 24 24 Dallas Clark Tight End Iowa
2 26 58 Mike Doss Safety Ohio State
3 26 90 Donald Strickland Cornerback Colorado
4 25 122 Steve Sciullo Guard Marshall
5 3 138 Robert Mathis Defensive End Alabama A&M
5 27 162 Kenyon Whiteside Linebacker Tennessee
6 25 198 Cato June Linebacker Michigan
6 35 208 Makoa Freitas Offensive Tackle Arizona
[edit]2004 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
2 12 44 Bob Sanders Safety Iowa
3 5 68 Ben Hartsock Tight End Ohio State
3 6 69 Gilbert Gardner Linebacker Purdue
4 11 107 Kendyll Pope Linebacker Florida State
4 29 125 Jason David Cornerback Washington State
5 9 141 Jake Scott Guard Idaho
6 8 173 Von Hutchins Cornerback Mississippi
6 28 193 Jim Sorgi Quarterback Wisconsin
7 28 229 David Kimball Placekicker Penn State
[edit]2005 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 29 29 Marlin Jackson Cornerback Michigan
2 28 60 Kelvin Hayden Cornerback Illinois
3 28 92 Vincent Burns Defensive End Kentucky
4 28 129 Dylan Gandy Guard Texas Tech
4 34 135 Matt Giordano Safety California
5 12 148 Jonathan Welsh Defensive End Wisconsin
5 29 165 Robert Hunt Center North Dakota State
5 37 173 Tyjuan Hagler Linebacker Cincinnati
6 28 202 Dave Rayner Placekicker Michigan State
7 29 243 Anthony Davis Running Back Wisconsin
[edit]2006 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 30 30 Joseph Addai Running Back LSU
2 30 62 Tim Jennings Cornerback Georgia
3 30 94 Freddie Keiaho Linebacker San Diego State
5 29 162 Michael Toudouze Guard TCU
6 30 199 Charlie Johnson Offensive Tackle Oklahoma State
6 38 207 Antoine Bethea Safety Howard
7 30 238 T.J. Rushing Cornerback Stanford
[edit]2007 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 32 32 Anthony Gonzalez Wide Receiver Ohio State
2 10 42 Tony Ugoh Offensive Tackle Arkansas
3 31 95 Daymeion Hughes Cornerback California
3 34 98 Quinn Pitcock Defensive Tackle Ohio State
4 32 131 Brannon Condren Safety Troy
4 37 136 Clint Session Linebacker Pittsburgh
5 32 169 Roy Hall Wide Receiver Ohio State
5 36 173 Michael Coe Cornerback Alabama State
7 32 232 Keyunta Dawson Linebacker Texas Tech
[edit]2008 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
2 28 59 Mike Pollak Center Arizona State
3 30 93 Philip Wheeler Linebacker Georgia Tech
4 28 127 Jacob Tamme Tight End Kentucky
5 26 161 Marcus Howard Linebacker Georgia
6 30 196 Tom Santi Tight End Virginia
6 35 201 Steve Justice Center Wake Forest
6 36 202 Mike Hart Running Back Michigan
6 39 205 Pierre Garcon Wide Receiver Mount Union
7 29 236 Jamey Richard Center Buffalo
[edit]2009 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 27 27 Donald Brown Running Back Connecticut
2 24 56 Fili Moala Defensive Tackle USC
3 28 92 Jerraud Powers Cornerback Auburn
4 27 127 Austin Collie Wide Receiver Brigham Young
4 36 136 Terrance Taylor Defensive Tackle Michigan
6 28 201 Curtis Painter Quarterback Purdue
7 13 222 Pat McAfee Kicker West Virginia
7 27 236 Jaimie Thomas Guard Maryland
[edit]2010 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 31 31 Jerry Hughes Defensive End TCU
2 31 63 Pat Angerer Linebacker Iowa
3 30 94 Kevin Thomas Cornerback USC
4 31 129 Jacques McClendon Guard Tennessee
5 31 162 Brody Eldridge Tight End Oklahoma
7 31 238 Ricardo Mathews Defensive End Cincinnati
7 33 240 Kavell Conner Linebacker Clemson
7 39 246 Ray Fisher Cornerback Indiana
[edit]2011 Draft

Round Pick # Overall Name Position College
1 22 22 Anthony Castonzo Offensive Tackle Boston College
2 17 49 Benjamin Ijalana Offensive Tackle Villanova
3 23 87 Drake Nevis Defensive Tackle Louisiana State
4 22 119 Delone Carter Running Back Syracuse
6 23 188 Chris Rucker Cornerback Michigan State

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 21, 2012 10:36 PM PST up reply actions

Uhm...

that was a bit longer than I intended, but the point remains.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 21, 2012 10:37 PM PST up reply actions

I think there is a little whole with part of your suggestion concerning Elway

Elway went through two mini dynasties as noted but although they were with the same franchise they were with two completely different teams. Completely different. I think if a QB is that good and has the team and coaching around him there is no law that says it can’t be done. Obviously it hasn’t really happened yet so there is definitely that part of it. But Pete also likes to say he wants his teem to be uncommon and do things that have neve been done before. Maybe bringing in Manning could fit with those mantras? If Luck or RGIII are not possibilities, and that is probably the case, I think Manning is a no brainer as the next best option. But I too will probably be fine with whatever Carroll and JS decide to do.

by William Bryan on Feb 21, 2012 1:24 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Interesting point.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 21, 2012 7:21 PM PST up reply actions

Since we are talking about quarterbacks.

I just read RgIII is not throwing at the combine. Siting unfamiliarity with the receivers etc.
Wouldn’t it be cool if at the combine there was a standardized American gladiator style football throwing course with explosions and stuff when they hit their mark.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea?

by nickfru1 on Feb 21, 2012 1:26 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

I would be all for Roman Gladiator style...

Where a tiger chases you for the 40-yard dash.

by goatweed on Feb 21, 2012 2:59 PM PST up reply actions

What a way to weed out the slow ones

Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters

by Corax --Nevermore-- on Feb 21, 2012 4:23 PM PST up reply actions

Ryan Mallett hates you!

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 21, 2012 7:22 PM PST up reply actions

QB and Superbowl correlation

While it may be obvious at first glance that a consistent, elite QB is the best path to a Superbowl, the argument can be made that there is another path to a Superbowl victory. A Superbowl can be won with average QB play, as shown by a few teams over the years.

Two recent Superbowl winning teams won with a average level of QB play, similar to what we see out of a healthy TJax. The curious thing about this is that these two teams also meet David’s non-dynasty one-off criteria; Tampa Bay in 2002 and Baltimore in 2000. Both won the Superbowl with a less than elite QB and never repeated that success.

So, why did those two teams make it to and then win the Superbowl? Both of these teams were ranked #1 or #2 in overall defense for the regular season in the respective year of their Superbowl win. Taking this example further, the 2002 Tampa Bay team only allowed 155 yds passing a game (!) and the 2000 Ravens allowed only 60 yds/game rushing in the regular season. That is an elite level of defense that makes the other team one dimensional and prone to mistakes, allowing an average QB to win a Superbowl.

What did I get from doing this little statistical review after reading David’s thought provoking post? Pete Carroll and John Schneider know that they don’t have an elite QB (duh). Also, I can believe they know that elite QB’s don’t come easy (duh again) and they need to be drafted and developed. However, one thing that PC/JS can do right now is build an elite defense that is ready to start a dynasty when they find their guy. They are way further along in a complete rebuild than what I thought they’d be able to do in this two year period of time.

So, back to Manning. For what it is worth, I love the idea of him rolling onto the field in a Seahawks uniform doing his crazy pre-snap gesturing and getting us to a Superbowl. That could happen. However, what is far more likely is him not being in Seattle or being healthy enough to play at an elite level. I would love the Peyton Manning of 2006. Unfortunately, it is 2012.

by Aztecs on Feb 21, 2012 1:27 PM PST reply actions

I'll add to this by invoking Joe Gibbs' 'Skins.

Those teams also had fantastic defenses.

The Offense was predicated on a strong O-line and Power Running with a QB who could launch the ball with deep accuracy when the D was forced to defend the run. Sound familiar?

by Groundhog on Feb 21, 2012 1:44 PM PST up reply actions

The Raven's defense may have a differing opinion

on the type of QB needed.

by GnarlyHawk on Feb 21, 2012 7:34 PM PST up reply actions

Ok, I didnt finish reading the entire article due to my short attention span but...

Isnt getting Manning and a young QB in the draft (2nd round this year or 1st round next in 2013 like you said) not mutually exclusive?

Not sure if you addressed this, but in my opinion, the ideal situation would be to sign Manning for around 2 years, draft a QB in the 1st round next year and let him learn under Manning, and then have him step in as our QB when Manning leaves/retires.

It is never ideal to have a rookie QB start anyways, so I basically see signing Manning as Manning vs. Tarvaris and NOT Manning vs. Drafted QB. Thoughts?

by SeahawksPhan on Feb 21, 2012 2:20 PM PST reply actions

By the way: Great write-up Davis!

by SeahawksPhan on Feb 21, 2012 2:21 PM PST up reply actions

I agree completely

It’s sort of surprising to me that this is such a polarizing topic among fans. Seems like a total no brainer, if Peyton is healthy enough and wants to come here. There’s almost no downside to signing him.

by WUWU on Feb 21, 2012 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

The only thing I would change from what you suggest...

…is that I expect a QB to be drafted this year. Tannehill/Wilson/somebody.

And if that doesn’t work out, sure, draft a guy next year.

To your point, signing Manning doesn’t (and shouldn’t) preclude obtaining young talent at the position as soon as possible.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 4:13 PM PST up reply actions

Correlation is not cause and effect

Kids drink milk and their shoe size increases – this does not mean that because kids drink milk their shoes get larger – this is a correlation but not a cause and effect. (Their shoes get larger because they are kids and kids grow older and get bigger) What I’m trying to say is jsut becaue most dynasties have the same QB and Coach does not mean that is the only way to win super bowls. If you have an elite QB you don’t let him go, that is why most QB’s win super bowls with the same team, they don’t move around from team to team – same with the coaches. And considering Pete Carrol wants to “Win Forever” why wouldn’t he want the best QB he could get now AND the best QB he can get for the future as SeahawskPhan suggested – sign Manning AND draft a QB.

Peytom Manning is in an extremely unique situation – he was out for a season AND his team was so terrible they get the #1 pick which happens to be the “next Peyton Manning” in Andrew Luck. If the combination of those two things don’t happen (which is an extremely rare combination) then Manning is most certainly still a Colt. So assuming Peyton is healthy I see no reason why we wouldn’t want to sign him for 2 or 3 years, compete in the playoffs and gain considerable experience for all our young players and a young backup QB, get them used to winning, then plug in the young QB when Peytons contract expires or when he gets injured again. It is a no-brainer to me. Issues should be contract price and health – that is all – I do not see how keeping TJack or a rookie (except maybe RGIII) as starter is more likely to move us toward a dynasty then Peyton Manning. That is illogical. I think arguing against Peyton Manning (for anything other than health reasons) is just silly – if you want to argue why going with another guy would be better that is one thing. But saying that a healthy Manning would not be an upgrade to our offense simply because no QB has won two Super Bowls with different teams makes little sense.

by atu81 on Feb 21, 2012 2:51 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

I agree with you and your cause/effect argument. Makes perfect sense. What I don't agree is that there are no other considerations.

If Manning has a team-first attitude, and completely supports PC, and the culture PC has brought to Seattle, great. If not, not.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 4:16 PM PST up reply actions

True, but

when you see a consistent pattern, the reasonable thing is to analyze it and see if there is a consistent cause. At the very least, I think Davis has established that this is something that can’t simply be dismissed.

"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 21, 2012 4:29 PM PST up reply actions

But there is not enough data to show why this wouldn't work

What I’m saying is his argument is disconnected to the Peyton Manning discussion – how many elite QB’s moved teams and were terrible, that is my question. How many elite QB’s moved to teams that had a solid defense/run game/WR’s and just needed a QB to put them over the top and made the team worse. That would be more informational than what he’s arguing. By his argument we should keep TJack as long as possible with PC because keeping the same two guys at QB and coach will give us the best shot at winning multiple super bowls. I know that’s not what he’s saying but that is valid based on his argument. The only guys I can think of recently would be Brett Favre and Kurt Warner who were both succesful. I would just like to know if there is a better alternative to signing Peyton (like say Matt Flynn? Trade for someone?) then I’ll hear you out. But considering our current situation I only see adding Peyton as an immediate upgrade if you want to win now while drafting or trading for another developmental QB. So if you tell me Matt Flynn or Ryan Tannehill gives us a better chance to win a super bowl and you sell me on it I’m all for it, but telling me just to not sign Peyton because no QB has won a super bowl with two teams is rediculous. (And if you tell me Tannehill is that good then why not sign Manning and draft him?)

by atu81 on Feb 22, 2012 6:49 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs

I understand what you're trying to say.

And I get that correlation isn’t causation.

But. When kids are born you feed them milk and their feet get bigger. If you don’t feed them milk they die.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Feb 21, 2012 5:35 PM PST up reply actions

What if they're lactose intolerant?!?

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 21, 2012 7:25 PM PST up reply actions

Lactose Intolerance only occurs in Adults

(My Melvin moment of the day)

by goatweed on Feb 21, 2012 8:48 PM PST up reply actions

Well I wasn't referring to babies but...

You can feed them soy formula – and it does look like milk – but I’m not sure I would call it milk and I don’t think it will kill them.

by atu81 on Feb 22, 2012 6:51 AM PST up reply actions

The thing that is different about Peyton than other older quarterbacks is his quick release

He doesn’t take many hits because he gets the ball off so quick. Our offensive line is not an elite unit by any means, but how many sacks were the result of TJax holding onto the ball forever? Peyton would make our already improving offensive line light years better with his release and also his calls at the line of scrimmage

by galvinx10 on Feb 21, 2012 3:44 PM PST reply actions

What has Peyton done to make people think he won't buy in?

Pete Carroll is all about working together with his staff and his players to get the best out of everyone. Why would Peyton Manning not buy into that? Does he come off as the kind of player who demands that he throws the ball 50 times a game or something like that? I think the guy just wants to win another Championship and I think that of all the teams who have the money and QB vacancy he will have the best chance here in Seattle. Of course there will be some changes made just like there will be when we eventually get our young QBOTF. I don’t understand why anyone thinks he won’t buy into Pete given how much flexibility Pete gives to his coaches to make things work. And Manning is as much of a coach out there as a player.

The author asks if our line can block for him, I think our line is better than the one he had in Indy and they blocked for him for years before he really got hurt. He surely has taken many hits and has not been an injury liability before this injury. My understanding is that this is not the type of injury that poses a risk for future injury. The bone is fused and it is as strong as it was before.

Finally, even if he does get hurt or does not work out for some reason who cares. He’s going to stunt the development of our QBOTF who is not even on our team yet? It’s not like we’ll be drafting a guy who can start right away. There is the argument that Peyton is not a good teacher to the other QBs but the guys he had behind him were never very good to begin with. Sorgi and Painter were late picks with minimal talent. That’s not Manning’s fault. We are going to be playing with a stop gap QB again next year, why not Manning? If he is the old Peyton Manning we could win the Super Bowl. If he’s not well at least he will be better than what we have now. I trust Pete and John to make a good decision but I don’t see any better options out there, if you know of one speak up.

by Billy Showbiz on Feb 21, 2012 5:06 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

My comment has nothing to do with Peyton and will probably be ignored

But, while I understand the WHY behind only limiting your analyses to super bowl winners, how can you forget the teams that have been the powerhouses in there divisions? Teams like Baltimore and Atlanta.

Without going into a long analyses, my view is sometimes its better to be lucky than good. As Baltimore and Atlanta prove.

by kermdawg on Feb 21, 2012 5:28 PM PST reply actions

To add to your (likely ignored remark) for purely arbitrary reasons, I think any team that makes it to the championship...

…has had a successful season. Those four teams would of course in include both the SB winner and loser that year.

Most years the championship games are better than the SB (this year being one of the exceptions, as all three games were great).

To your point, if you did an analysis on every team in the modern era to play in the championship game, you might find some broader trends that are meaningful in gaging successful franchises, and how they were constructed/staffed/led/QBed.

1st: Tannehill/Brockers/DeCastro
2nd: David/Iloka/Martin
3rd: Russell Wilson/Irvin/Polk

by Hawksince77 on Feb 21, 2012 6:52 PM PST up reply actions

That would make Seattle a dynasty

And that is simply laughable.

by GnarlyHawk on Feb 21, 2012 7:40 PM PST up reply actions

I really don't understand the argument against Manning as a Seahawks QB

under Carroll based on his “diva” attitude.

Honestly, Manning is absolutely the most competitive minded QB in the league – maybe Brady or Rodgers or Tebow is as competitive, but no one actually suprasses his desire to excel, win, and be considered the best in the history of the game. The last thing that anyone can say about Manning is that he ever sought personal glory over team success while on the football field. What more could PC want in any of his players? A leader, who speaks his mind, and leaves everything on the field for the team.

Carroll doesn’t ask his players to prostrate themselves before his ego or concede his superiority or dominance – in fact Carroll wants his players to exceed expectations, he wants everyone from the towel boy to the owner to grow, learn, and become greater than they ever have been, he wants to be surprised, and most of all Carroll wants to be better than he was the day before or the year before. Carroll wants to teach others ways to become excellent, and he wants to learn how to excel himself.

Sure, Manning’s nerve may never heal, his arm strength might not get to the same level it was before, he may never be accurate again, and he might not ever be 50% of the physical specimen that he was (completely precluding him from being even an average QB), but the last argument that can be made against Manning is that his attitude doesn’t jive with Carroll’s.

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Feb 21, 2012 8:50 PM PST reply actions 3 recs

I totally agree

This notion that Peyton would come in and pout and whine and lose games because he didn’t like the play calling or something is absurd. I’ll keep saying it, if he’s healthy lets get him. If there is a better alternative I’d love to hear it. Drafting a QB to play behind TJack vs drafting a QB to play behind Manning seems like a simple choice.

by atu81 on Feb 22, 2012 7:17 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Its not absurd to worry about it

Neither you nor I or anyone else on this site really know how it would work. He might mesh fine, but he has had a lot of control of the offense where he has been and that might not work with Cable and therefore PC. It might turn out to be a non-issue, but to ignore it is to live in ignorance.

by stufr on Feb 22, 2012 7:22 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

You could say that about anyone then

Tell me what QB we could bring in that buying in isn’t a question then, is TJack meshing good enough for you? You’d rather stick with him? Or do you think Tannehill will mesh better and get us to a super bowl this season? I would just like to know what the better alternative is. I am all for Peyton Manning unless you tell me that a different QB will give us a better chance at winning.

by atu81 on Feb 22, 2012 7:59 AM PST up reply actions

I remember a few instances of Manning glaring at Dungy

Because he didn’t like a decision (not going for it on 4th, for example) and other instances where he waved off Dungy’s calls completely. I think that’s probably what people are referring to.

by jhmg16 on Feb 22, 2012 7:58 AM PST via mobile up reply actions

So...

TJack conforming and running PC’s play is better than Manning waiving it off and audibling at the LOS? So when we’re down 7 in the 4th qaurter on the road vs the 49ers next year you’d rather have TJack following PC’s orders then Manning being a rebel and calling his own plays.

by atu81 on Feb 22, 2012 8:02 AM PST up reply actions

I personally don't really have a preference in the matter.

I think there are disadvantages to each. Just offering some examples of diva behavior or not buying in or whatever.

by jhmg16 on Feb 22, 2012 8:06 AM PST via mobile up reply actions

I hear you

Just trying to point out our options – I just think people are attacking the Manning idea with no better alternatives or options – people keep saying going young would be better but I don’t see why we can’t sign Manning AND draft a QB, I don’t think winning games with Manning and possibly going deep into the playoffs hinders the development of a rookie QB. Pretty sure that will only help. And sticking with TJack just seems like banging your head against a wall.

by atu81 on Feb 22, 2012 8:13 AM PST up reply actions

I don't see any downside.

The only thing I feel a little bit crunchy about is the notion of winning our franchise’s first ever Super Bowl with Manning as QB. Would feel a liiiittle bit like sloppy seconds to me. Like, oh, all it took was bringing in one of the greatest quarterbacks in the history of the sport? Nice work everyone…

I realize this is not rational.

by jhmg16 on Feb 22, 2012 8:31 AM PST up reply actions

I like that - that is much more rational then this article

Lets just admit that winning our first super bowl with a guy who will go into the HOF as a Colt will sully it up. PC might be thinking the same thing – if I sign Manning and we win then he might get all the credit. If we sign Flynn and he’s great then it’ll just be “that Packers system” that really churns out great QB’s. He might just want his own guy in there. That so far is the best reason I’ve read for lets get anyone but Manning! I love it.

by atu81 on Feb 22, 2012 8:45 AM PST up reply actions

That's a ridiculous reason not to get Peyton (or Flynn.)

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 23, 2012 12:53 AM PST up reply actions

Let's take that attitude to the dating atmosphere...

that’s like saying you wouldn’t be able to enjoy a really, really “fun” and “successful” year with Jennifer Aniston/George Clooney (depending on orientation) because he/she has been around the block.

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Feb 22, 2012 6:58 PM PST up reply actions

Didn't I just say it's not rational?

And still, yeah, obviously I would put down and insult and just generally harass Jennifer Aniston about all the fucking douchebags she had dated until she got fed up and started crying and dumped me. I’m a demanding dude.

by jhmg16 on Feb 23, 2012 12:34 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

rec'd for knowing yourself

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Feb 23, 2012 8:26 AM PST up reply actions

So what you're saying is...

we need a better QB that will be a top QB for a long time to win with few exceptions. I’d rather go young too. It is risky finding a young QB capable of winning, but it is still the best way to go. I hope Schneider and Carroll can do it.But so far no cigar. I don’t want them to bet the farm to move up either. For the most part the QBs that win are usually obtained organically (Ben R. Peyton, Brady) or through good fortune (Eli to the Giants, Drew Brees to the Saints). I also feel like we have a coach that can take a raw talent in a later round and mold them into something great. They need to keep churning that QB position until they find their guy. I hope to see some churn this year. I want Tarvaris to feel the heat at the QB position after the free agency and draft is done.

by A. Simmons on Feb 21, 2012 11:33 PM PST reply actions

I completely support and understand the trend analysis.

In fact, it was very well researched, and you did a good job of connecting QB/Head Coach, multiple SB’s in a way I’ve never seen. Something I think you really made a strong connection with.

However, this is more likely to be an outlier than almost any situation. It’s like Dan Marino having injury and timing cut him loose from the Dolphins, but still getting a chance to play. Or Brett Fa…never mind. You get the idea though. I’d take a long look at Reggie White at 48 years old while not taking a second look at a 34 year old Kearney, or Clemons, or Leonard Little. I’d bring Barry Sanders in for a tryout today.

I overstated that on purpose. You never stated that following trends blindly is the way to success, and I’m trying not to put those words in your mouth. But if I’m a decision-maker for an NFL franchise that just needs a QB and is likely a playoff team, and my options are between Rookie, Tarvaris Jackson, or a shot at having a healthy Peyton Manning, the clear HOF QB is going to get a long hard look.

On the negative side, the “might never play again” crowd gets my vote over the trends and norms. Peyton Manning being available does not fall under norms. The veteran QB that is available after 35 is normally a Matt Hasselbeck level player, Jeff Garcia, not one of the top 3-5 QB’s ever to play the game. Trends are great for information, but risks are worth it sometimes. If Manning’s health (the more important issue) works out, I’d rather go with Manning and let this front office work on drafting some young guys to replace him than to ignore Manning’s availability.

That’s the short version of my counter-argument. No where near as detailed as your argument, and it doesn’t make what you said wrong. Its just my answer to the question(s) you raised.

by cashless on Feb 22, 2012 10:38 PM PST reply actions 1 recs