Manning to Part ways tomorrow

[clyde_carbon]

Does anyone think that the whole Peyton Manning ordeal will make Alex's contract negotiations dwindle even longer? I'm sure Condon will have his hands full with Manning's offers the next two weeks. Will he have time for Alex?

 

[NinerSickness]

Schef confirms PM is en route to Denver for his first visit.

Ok that's just insulting.

 

[NinerSickness]

The answer lies in our interpretations of "the future" - to me the future is 2012 not 2015.

For me the future is the year 2000.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

Does anyone think that the whole Peyton Manning ordeal will make Alex's contract negotiations dwindle even longer? I'm sure Condon will have his hands full with Manning's offers the next two weeks. Will he have time for Alex?

I do, with each passing day smith doesnt take that offer manning becomes more a possibility or even going with CK for that matter does.

Smith needs to just take what he can get from us.

 

[Bemular]

But you're completely discounting CK now. By all accounts CK is the future of this team. He's the insurance policy, whether Alex regresses or Manning gets injured.

That's why going after Manning, even if it might be more risky than going with Alex, makes so much sense. If Manning is Manning, then we're the favorites to win it all. If he gets injured, we have our insurance policy.

Actually, none of either Kaepernick, Smith or Manning are being discounted at all. I am, however, recognizing their different values to the big picture along a timeline.

CK is the insurance policy only until he becomes the starter. If he is 0 years away from starting the decision is easy and the risk is limited to whether or not your analysis of CK is correct. You do not sign either Smith or Manning, you load up on playmakers, put Kap behind center come Sept. and roll the dice. No brainer.

0-1 year away equals more risk and a tough decision.
1-2 years away equals even more risk and an even tougher decision.
2-3 years away equals even more risk and an even tougher decision.

There are a couple things to know and expect about the risks associated with Manning besides just his health. First, he has no residual value, once he is no longer the starter for whatever reason, he's done. (Smith, on the other hand would have residual value if we chose to incorporate it).

Second, Manning, as you have noted, would come with a much higher team cost meaning we can expect to lose a player or two that we might not have lost if we signed Smith. Thus Manning’s team would likely have fewer playmakers than Smith's team would have and a lot fewer than CK's team would have; players we would eventually need to replace.

As previously mentioned, if CK is ready now then signing either Smith or Manning would make no sense at all, by contrast if CK is at least 3 years away from starting and Manning, along with the extenuating circumstances of signing him, give us the best chance at winning the SB then it is an easy decision. As for what to do between years 1-3, I don't know - perhaps close your eyes and throw a dart.

Finally, I understand the hyperbole surrounding the signing of Peyton Manning but I am not swayed much by media BS. I am much more practical. Manning would be coming to an entirely different situation and to my knowledge, only once in the history of the league has a QB switched teams and then won the SB with their new team. So while the media might make us favorites to win the SB, reality wouldn't.

 

[Bemular]

For me the future is the year 2000.

Hilarious! I loved Coco and I loved this segment!

 

[maniax]

Actually, none of either Kaepernick, Smith or Manning are being discounted at all. I am, however, recognizing their different values to the big picture along a timeline.

CK is the insurance policy only until he becomes the starter. If he is 0 years away from starting the decision is easy and the risk is limited to whether or not your analysis of CK is correct. You do not sign either Smith or Manning, you load up on playmakers, put Kap behind center come Sept. and roll the dice. No brainer.

0-1 year away equals more risk and a tough decision.
1-2 years away equals even more risk and an even tougher decision.
2-3 years away equals even more risk and an even tougher decision.

There are a couple things to know and expect about the risks associated with Manning besides just his health. First, he has no residual value, once he is no longer the starter for whatever reason, he's done. (Smith, on the other hand would have residual value if we chose to incorporate it).

Second, Manning, as you have noted, would come with a much higher team cost meaning we can expect to lose a player or two that we might not have lost if we signed Smith. Thus Manning’s team would likely have fewer playmakers than Smith's team would have and a lot fewer than CK's team would have; players we would eventually need to replace.

As previously mentioned, if CK is ready now then signing either Smith or Manning would make no sense at all, by contrast if CK is at least 3 years away from starting and Manning, along with the extenuating circumstances of signing him, give us the best chance at winning the SB then it is an easy decision. As for what to do between years 1-3, I don't know - perhaps close your eyes and throw a dart.

Finally, I understand the hyperbole surrounding the signing of Peyton Manning but I am not swayed much by media BS. I am much more practical. Manning would be coming to an entirely different situation and to my knowledge, only once in the history of the league has a QB switched teams and then won the SB with their new team. So while the media might make us favorites to win the SB, reality wouldn't.

If the coaching staff thinks CK is ready today, then forget about both Manning and Smith. Go with CK.

The coaching staff did wonders with Alex Smith last year, made him into a real solid QB. I think they could the same thing with CK.

 

[deep9er]

If the coaching staff thinks CK is ready today, then forget about both Manning and Smith. Go with CK.

The coaching staff did wonders with Alex Smith last year, made him into a real solid QB. I think they could the same thing with CK.

obviously, the Coaching staff doesn't think he's ready, and can't blame them.

sooner or later they'll have to transition away from Alex Smith, but why do it NOW if we don't have to? unless Alex Smith insists on a BIG contract/longer contract, we shouldn't have to.

there's no doubt Harbaugh will continue to develop CK, Tolzien, or whomever else.

 

[Bemular]

If the coaching staff thinks CK is ready today, then forget about both Manning and Smith. Go with CK.

The coaching staff did wonders with Alex Smith last year, made him into a real solid QB. I think they could the same thing with CK.

Exactly, plus, think about what we can do with the extra space not just this year but for the next 2-3 years.

 

[BINGO]

Does anyone think that the whole Peyton Manning ordeal will make Alex's contract negotiations dwindle even longer? I'm sure Condon will have his hands full with Manning's offers the next two weeks. Will he have time for Alex?

What if 49ers lose QB Smith?
3:59 PM ET
San Francisco 49ers

Head coach Jim Harbaugh and the San Francisco 49ers have remained resolute in their devotion to keeping Alex Smith as their quarterback this offseason. However, he's set to become a free agent on Tuesday unless the two sides can work out a contract for 2012. What would happen if they can't get that accomplished and they lose him via free agency?

You may have heard of a veteran free agent by the name of Peyton Manning. There's also been plenty of buzz about backup Green Bay Packers' quarterback Matt Flynn. However, CSNBayArea.com's Matt Maiocco thinks the most logical fit for the Niners would be Josh Johnson, who played for Harbaugh at the University of San Diego.

As Maiocco notes, the Niners want to ink Smith to a short-term deal that limits their financial commitment to him. Meanwhile, Smith wants to paid like the "elite quarterback" that Harbaugh publicly dubbed him.

Right now, the 49ers like Smith enough to keep him for the short term, but they envision 2011 second-round pick Colin Kaepernick as their quarterback of the future. It's possible that the Niners might go after Johnson on the cheap via free agency, even if they keep Smith in tow to give them some depth.

- Tom Carpenter​

 

[Bemular]

obviously, the Coaching staff doesn't think he's ready, and can't blame them.

sooner or later they'll have to transition away from Alex Smith, but why do it NOW if we don't have to? unless Alex Smith insists on a BIG contract/longer contract, we shouldn't have to.

there's no doubt Harbaugh will continue to develop CK, Tolzien, or whomever else.

Watch what happens with Smith's contract negotiations. If Marathe & Baalke are unwilling to compromise our offer to Alex, that would say alot about Colin's state of readiness or our effort to acquire Manning, or even some other QB.

If we do compromise with Alex then we can reasonably conclude both that Manning is off the table and Colin is still a year or more out.

 

[wartyOne]

For me the future is the year 2000.

Mr. T: "In the year 2000, fools will show up at my door to ask me stop pitying them, but it will be raining and I won't be home, so I will not stop pitying them."

 

[wartyOne]

Actually, none of either Kaepernick, Smith or Manning are being discounted at all. I am, however, recognizing their different values to the big picture along a timeline.

CK is the insurance policy only until he becomes the starter. If he is 0 years away from starting the decision is easy and the risk is limited to whether or not your analysis of CK is correct. You do not sign either Smith or Manning, you load up on playmakers, put Kap behind center come Sept. and roll the dice. No brainer.

0-1 year away equals more risk and a tough decision.
1-2 years away equals even more risk and an even tougher decision.
2-3 years away equals even more risk and an even tougher decision.

There are a couple things to know and expect about the risks associated with Manning besides just his health. First, he has no residual value, once he is no longer the starter for whatever reason, he's done. (Smith, on the other hand would have residual value if we chose to incorporate it).

Second, Manning, as you have noted, would come with a much higher team cost meaning we can expect to lose a player or two that we might not have lost if we signed Smith. Thus Manning’s team would likely have fewer playmakers than Smith's team would have and a lot fewer than CK's team would have; players we would eventually need to replace.

As previously mentioned, if CK is ready now then signing either Smith or Manning would make no sense at all, by contrast if CK is at least 3 years away from starting and Manning, along with the extenuating circumstances of signing him, give us the best chance at winning the SB then it is an easy decision. As for what to do between years 1-3, I don't know - perhaps close your eyes and throw a dart.

Finally, I understand the hyperbole surrounding the signing of Peyton Manning but I am not swayed much by media BS. I am much more practical. Manning would be coming to an entirely different situation and to my knowledge, only once in the history of the league has a QB switched teams and then won the SB with their new team. So while the media might make us favorites to win the SB, reality wouldn't.

Steve Young
Doug Williams
Brad Johnson
Jim Plunkett
Mark Rypien
Brett Favre
Kurt Warner
Drew Brees

 

[Bemular]

Steve Young
Doug Williams
Brad Johnson
Jim Plunkett
Mark Rypien
Brett Favre
Kurt Warner
Drew Brees

My meaning was unintentionally vague. What I meant by "new team" is winning the first year they arrived. My bad.

 

[Bemular]

IF Manning's neck fusion is solid, then it would be safe to play - but that is not the biggest problem facing Peyton Manning.

 

[wartyOne]

My meaning was unintentionally vague. What I meant by "new team" is winning the first year they arrived. My bad.

Cool. I saw that and thought, "Tampa Bay has had three involved in that scenario," so I started digging deeper.

 

[Bemular]

Cool. I saw that and thought, "Tampa Bay has had three involved in that scenario," so I started digging deeper.

After seeing your comment I re-read my post and realized I had worded it poorly. Interestingly, the only QB (to my knowledge because I just glanced at the list) who did win the SB in his first year with his new team was Dilfer.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Meanwhile, Smith wants to paid like the "elite quarterback" that Harbaugh publicly dubbed him.

Obviously these are contract negotiations, and you can't take anything anyone says at face value......but can you imagine if this came up. "You said Alex was an elite QB, and Pro Bowl player, numerous times, we have it documented!". Harbaugh would have to politely explain that he was just being positive and pumping him up.

I mean, I can't imagine even Condon would try to portray Smith as an elite QB, no matter what Harbaugh said in a presser.

 

[BINGO]

Obviously these are contract negotiations, and you can't take anything anyone says at face value......but can you imagine if this came up. "You said Alex was an elite QB, and Pro Bowl player, numerous times, we have it documented!". Harbaugh would have to politely explain that he was just being positive and pumping him up.

I mean, I can't imagine even Condon would try to portray Smith as an elite QB, no matter what Harbaugh said in a presser.

Crazier sh*t has happened in this world. When $$ is at stakes, all of the cards comes out.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Actually, none of either Kaepernick, Smith or Manning are being discounted at all. I am, however, recognizing their different values to the big picture along a timeline.

CK is the insurance policy only until he becomes the starter. If he is 0 years away from starting the decision is easy and the risk is limited to whether or not your analysis of CK is correct. You do not sign either Smith or Manning, you load up on playmakers, put Kap behind center come Sept. and roll the dice. No brainer.

0-1 year away equals more risk and a tough decision.
1-2 years away equals even more risk and an even tougher decision.
2-3 years away equals even more risk and an even tougher decision.

There are a couple things to know and expect about the risks associated with Manning besides just his health. First, he has no residual value, once he is no longer the starter for whatever reason, he's done. (Smith, on the other hand would have residual value if we chose to incorporate it).

Second, Manning, as you have noted, would come with a much higher team cost meaning we can expect to lose a player or two that we might not have lost if we signed Smith. Thus Manning’s team would likely have fewer playmakers than Smith's team would have and a lot fewer than CK's team would have; players we would eventually need to replace.

As previously mentioned, if CK is ready now then signing either Smith or Manning would make no sense at all, by contrast if CK is at least 3 years away from starting and Manning, along with the extenuating circumstances of signing him, give us the best chance at winning the SB then it is an easy decision. As for what to do between years 1-3, I don't know - perhaps close your eyes and throw a dart.

Finally, I understand the hyperbole surrounding the signing of Peyton Manning but I am not swayed much by media BS. I am much more practical. Manning would be coming to an entirely different situation and to my knowledge, only once in the history of the league has a QB switched teams and then won the SB with their new team. So while the media might make us favorites to win the SB, reality wouldn't.

That's just flat-out wrong. Off the top of my head, Brees, Dilfer, Gannon, TB's QB (Brad Johnson?), and Brett Favre won for teams other than the one that drafted them. Kurt Warner could be considered in that class as he went to camp with GB before moving to the arena league.

Now, if you're talking about a QB winning for another team the first year he joined them, you may be right. Johnson and Warner won in their second years, and Gannon in his third. Can't speak for the rest and don't have time to research now.

I see Warty addressed this. Sorry to reiterate, though I'm pleased to see I came up with a few names Warty missed.