Not Getting Manning was possibly a turn for Future success/sustainability

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by JerryRice1848:

Originally posted by English:
$95 million.

£60 million

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7713078/2012-nfl-free-agency-peyton-manning-denver-broncos-agree-96m-deal-source-says

$96 million.

Conversion rate... English currency, no less. 60 million pounds = 95 million dollars

A Manning signing by the 49ers in the eyes of any semi intelligent 49er fan would see this as bad for the future.

Originally posted by English:
$95 million.

1,253,021,500 Mexican pesos

49ers Defense>Manning

Fangio would say, 'Fck no! I got fired because of that dude. Not again. I'm taking my defense with me.'

Yes. This is obvious. We would have had to gut the defense to sign Peyton.

Also, Alex smith has a QB rating of 102 for $8m a year.

Ok

Depends on your perspective on Manning's role for this team.

Its true that signing Manning would basically bind us salary cap wise, and we would not be able to sign/resign keys guys on defense (Goldson, etc.). However, I do believe that by signing Manning, this team would be LESS reliant on an overwhelming defense, and therefore we could get away with losing some guys on that side of the field. Right now, the emphasis on defense is aggrandized by the notion that our offense can and will sputter at times. We need to keep teams in the 10-20 point range, because it's obvious that if a team puts up 30+ points and/or we fall behind by 2-3 TDs, odds are we will not be able to make up for it on the offensive front.

I think Manning would have negated that, and in a sense would have "relieved" some of that pressure on our defense.

The question surrounding Manning (and whether or not he was worth a risk for us) was not really the money issue, but rather if he was worth the risk considering his injury. And that theory IMO has been proven wrong by his play and the current success of the Broncos. Here is a guy that threw 3 INTs in the first quarter IN Atlanta, yet almost got his team to win. Here is a guy that was down by 24 IN San Diego, yet put up 35 points in the 2nd half to get his team to win. Clearly, Manning is still a great QB, and will make the probowl this year.......and give his team a legitimate shot at winning a SB.

Im not taking anything away from Alex, but if one can accept that Manning really is back and can sustain his skill level for another 2-3 years, then I do think he was worth the sign over Smith. There's no guarantee that the Niners are going to be great 3 years from now, and history shows that there is NO WAY you can sustain a dynasty without a star QB leading the way.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:
The question is how much is a superbowl worth? We have been lucky to have as many as we do. Most franchises havn't won a single title. 95 mil is worth every penny for a SB.

It isn't the bucks. It is the necessitated dismantling of the team of young players for one dude on his last legs.

This. English has his smart cap on today.

Originally posted by nickbradley:
Yes. This is obvious. We would have had to gut the defense to sign Peyton.

Also, Alex smith has a QB rating of 102 for $8m a year.

We wouldn't have been able to sign some of the players we did this year but the huge hit for us would be next year. There is little likeliehood that Goldson would sign with us next year if Peyton is on our team. The cap hit is way too much. Same with a bunch of other players. We would have had a 2 or 3 year window and that's probably it.

Originally posted by Faraz80:
Depends on your perspective on Manning's role for this team.

Its true that signing Manning would basically bind us salary cap wise, and we would not be able to sign/resign keys guys on defense (Goldson, etc.). However, I do believe that by signing Manning, this team would be LESS reliant on an overwhelming defense, and therefore we could get away with losing some guys on that side of the field. Right now, the emphasis on defense is aggrandized by the notion that our offense can and will sputter at times. We need to keep teams in the 10-20 point range, because it's obvious that if a team puts up 30+ points and/or we fall behind by 2-3 TDs, odds are we will not be able to make up for it on the offensive front.

I think Manning would have negated that, and in a sense would have "relieved" some of that pressure on our defense.

The question surrounding Manning (and whether or not he was worth a risk for us) was not really the money issue, but rather if he was worth the risk considering his injury. And that theory IMO has been proven wrong by his play and the current success of the Broncos. Here is a guy that threw 3 INTs in the first quarter IN Atlanta, yet almost got his team to win. Here is a guy that was down by 24 IN San Diego, yet put up 35 points in the 2nd half to get his team to win. Clearly, Manning is still a great QB, and will make the probowl this year.......and give his team a legitimate shot at winning a SB.

Im not taking anything away from Alex, but if one can accept that Manning really is back and can sustain his skill level for another 2-3 years, then I do think he was worth the sign over Smith. There's no guarantee that the Niners are going to be great 3 years from now, and history shows that there is NO WAY you can sustain a dynasty without a star QB leading the way.

Granted, Manning brings a completely different element to this offense, but for all of his greatness, at the end of the day, I have never considered him a great playoff player, and he is 1-1 in Super Bowls. How many times has he been one and done in the postseason? I count at least 5. We are trying to win a Super Bowl and I don't think the addition of Peyton Manning (and losing our defense) puts us in a better position than keeping Alex Smith (and our defense).

Also, what do you consider a star QB?

Manning may end up with a fifth MVP. Wanted back in march, still want now lol

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by Faraz80:
Depends on your perspective on Manning's role for this team.

Its true that signing Manning would basically bind us salary cap wise, and we would not be able to sign/resign keys guys on defense (Goldson, etc.). However, I do believe that by signing Manning, this team would be LESS reliant on an overwhelming defense, and therefore we could get away with losing some guys on that side of the field. Right now, the emphasis on defense is aggrandized by the notion that our offense can and will sputter at times. We need to keep teams in the 10-20 point range, because it's obvious that if a team puts up 30+ points and/or we fall behind by 2-3 TDs, odds are we will not be able to make up for it on the offensive front.

I think Manning would have negated that, and in a sense would have "relieved" some of that pressure on our defense.

The question surrounding Manning (and whether or not he was worth a risk for us) was not really the money issue, but rather if he was worth the risk considering his injury. And that theory IMO has been proven wrong by his play and the current success of the Broncos. Here is a guy that threw 3 INTs in the first quarter IN Atlanta, yet almost got his team to win. Here is a guy that was down by 24 IN San Diego, yet put up 35 points in the 2nd half to get his team to win. Clearly, Manning is still a great QB, and will make the probowl this year.......and give his team a legitimate shot at winning a SB.

Im not taking anything away from Alex, but if one can accept that Manning really is back and can sustain his skill level for another 2-3 years, then I do think he was worth the sign over Smith. There's no guarantee that the Niners are going to be great 3 years from now, and history shows that there is NO WAY you can sustain a dynasty without a star QB leading the way.

Granted, Manning brings a completely different element to this offense, but for all of his greatness, at the end of the day, I have never considered him a great playoff player, and he is 1-1 in Super Bowls. How many times has he been one and done in the postseason? I count at least 5. We are trying to win a Super Bowl and I don't think the addition of Peyton Manning (and losing our defense) puts us in a better position than keeping Alex Smith (and our defense).

Also, what do you consider a star QB?

Peyton had the misfortune of playing in a conference (and in an era) where he was matched up against 2 dynasties (New Englant and Pittsburgh). Similar to how Young had to always face the Cowboys and Packers. Its unfortunate, and although one can argue he came up short against those teams periodically, I do think that he would have great success with us, especially in a conference where the only consistent team has been the Giants (and even thats arguable).

Peyton, with his arm, and this defense.....I just dont see how we could not win a Superbowl or 2.

Originally posted by 5NorCalSavage2:

49ers Defense>Manning

49ers defense + Manning = championship.

Probably 2 of them before the defense is broken up or Manning retires.