702 wrote:Man I was getting ready to back Heyeaglesfn and his points then he goes and does the Manning thing. Whoops.

I'm not saying that I would do it if I was Houston or would want it if I was a Houston fan, but they did want him when he originally went to Denver and with how bad Hoyer was in the playoffs, I think they would consider it.

heyeaglefn wrote:

The Savior wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

The Savior wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:I think Peyton Manning to Houston is more likely then them wanting to trade for Bradford after we franchise him.

huh?

If Denver moves on from Manning and he wants to play one more year, I could see Houston being a leader to get him.

so you're suggesting that houston would prefer a downgrade at the qb position?

I am sure they would consider bringing him in. Can't think of many other teams that would want him and bringing him in with Hoyer and a rookie might not be the worst thing for them.

So you think Peyton will take a significant pay cut to play for a new franchise as a sideline mentor? But Houston wouldn't pay for Bradford?

Not only would they have to pay for Bradford but also trade something to get him. My guess is Peyton would cost less than whatever the Bradford final number would be, but it could be close. He won't have many suitors since he wants to play for a competitor and not many competitors will want him so I think he will take less.

houston will have zero interest in manning. absolutely zero. it would be an absolute waste of deandre hopkins' skills to have a QB who cannot throw the ball deep.

Shredded arm Manning for nothing but money (how has that worked out for an elite defensive team?) or trade some resources for a guy who maybe isn't as smart as Peyton but far more capable physically at this point yet not a turnover machine. Imo, Bradford to Houston makes them instant contenders with that defense and an offense that includes Hopkins, Blue and Foster.

Which is why we should keep him. He's 28.

Grotewold wrote:Which is why we should keep him. He's 28.

Yeah, I agree with this. The defense was actually pretty good most of the first half of the season and then they were probably overworked down the stretch and ran a shitty scheme in the secondary which exposed the weaknesses. I'd like to think a 4-3 under Schwartz plus a ball controlish offense with Bradford/Murray/Matthews/Sproles and Ertz/Celeck could be pretty good actually.

Bill McNeal wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Which is why we should keep him. He's 28.

Yeah, I agree with this. The defense was actually pretty good most of the first half of the season and then they were probably overworked down the stretch and ran a shitty scheme in the secondary which exposed the weaknesses. I'd like to think a 4-3 under Schwartz plus a ball controlish offense with Bradford/Murray/Matthews/Sproles and Ertz/Celeck could be pretty good actually.

If you want a ball controlish offense, then it makes no sense to invest the money it will cost in a guy like bradford, in my opinion.

Bradford is not a good fit in anything "controllish". Too much nervous energy on the field. Even handoffs to Murray are not a sure thing.

Do you actually believe this stuff

Doll Is Mine wrote:Bradford is not a good fit in anything "controllish". Too much nervous energy on the field. Even handoffs to Murray are not a sure thing.

That may have been more Chip's hair-on-fire offense, seeing as the entire unit took turns looking drunk

ReadingPhilly wrote:Do you actually believe this stuff

Maybe because I'm gay, I notice things that you don't.

Eagles to sign Robert Griffin III

wow

EEM

CoachSegrest
Despite the rumors & speculation, I'm committed to being with @RazorbackFB and coaching a great & #Uncommon group of young men. #Front4orce

Youseff you cray

Doll Is Mine wrote:Bradford is not a good fit in anything "controllish". Too much nervous energy on the field. Even handoffs to Murray are not a sure thing.

you are a shitty poster.

DiM you seem to hold grudges hard on those who disappoint you - Chip, Bradfarts, etc.

The Savior wrote:

Bill McNeal wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Which is why we should keep him. He's 28.

Yeah, I agree with this. The defense was actually pretty good most of the first half of the season and then they were probably overworked down the stretch and ran a shitty scheme in the secondary which exposed the weaknesses. I'd like to think a 4-3 under Schwartz plus a ball controlish offense with Bradford/Murray/Matthews/Sproles and Ertz/Celeck could be pretty good actually.

If you want a ball controlish offense, then it makes no sense to invest the money it will cost in a guy like bradford, in my opinion.

I think with Bradford you've got a guy who completes a very high percentage of his passes, most of which are short, and doesn't commit horrible turnovers. We saw the difference when Sanchez was in this year, got down close to the goal line with a chance to win the game (or take the lead late at least) and Sanchez has to just not sit on his nutsack and what did he do? Horrible turnover.

BigEd76 wrote:EEM

CoachSegrest
Despite the rumors & speculation, I'm committed to being with @RazorbackFB and coaching a great & #Uncommon group of young men. #Front4orce

I'll be he stays "committed" to Arkansas until National Signing Day

Youseff wrote:Eagles to sign Robert Griffin III

wow

there was a weird point in the night/morning where i read this in a super duper haze and was like "ohhh shit"

luckily it wore off