Was it on the day they tweeted about a former Colts pro bowler throwing to Moss? If so, that's a lot of chutzpah.
Yep, they tweeted a lot of funny stuff like that before we decided to take them seriously.
Was it on the day they tweeted about a former Colts pro bowler throwing to Moss? If so, that's a lot of chutzpah.
and hopefully the cardinals take note and return the favor in the future. teams do this to one another all of the time. the giants often sign former cowboys/redskins etc. and the eagles swooped in under the cowboys/jets last year and signed asomuah(or however its spelled) right under them...in spite of people not thinking that the eagles needed him. it's part of the comptetive business. all I'm saying is that whiz should be taking notes...If this is truly the case, I hope Manning goes to the Titans and Alex Smith signs with another team. Karma is truly a bitch.
Question - If we cut Kolb and didn't sign Manning where would we be then? (Answer: With Skelton, Bartel and 7-mil cap relief)....The Cardinals drug their feet. I mean why not cut Kolb...Go all in for Manning......why wouldn't we go all out like Denver and Tennessee??
Question - If we cut Kolb and didn't sign Manning where would we be then? (Answer: With Skelton, Bartel and 7-mil cap relief).
Not that I don't like Skelton, but he's still relatively uproven as a prime-time QB. A QB lineup of Skelton & Bartel would leave us pretty thin & shaky.
Your second question - Why didn't we go all in for Manning like Denver & Tennessee? The answer is, I think: "Because even if we did, it wouldn't have been enough." Which, in my mind, raises a follow-up question:
"If we knew we didn't have enough competitive juice (especially given the Kolb time constraint) why take part in the rat-race at all?"
I agree with you, but I think the cardinals had to pursue PM. and I think whiz's statement is actually 100% on the money with their plans all along.Question - If we cut Kolb and didn't sign Manning where would we be then? (Answer: With Skelton, Bartel and 7-mil cap relief).
Not that I don't like Skelton, but he's still relatively uproven as a prime-time QB. A QB lineup of Skelton & Bartel would leave us pretty thin & shaky.
Your second question - Why didn't we go all in for Manning like Denver & Tennessee? The answer is, I think: "Because even if we did, it wouldn't have been enough." Which, in my mind, raises a follow-up question:
"If we knew we didn't have enough competitive juice (especially given the Kolb time constraint) why take part in the rat-race at all?"
I don't think it is that at all. but if their approach was to go after other huge money guys they would not have been able to enter the manning chase. having said that you can't sit still and allow peyton's fate to determine the fate of your organization. and clearly the cardinals did not allow that to happen. they tried and when petyon wasn't ready to make a decision they backed out. it was the right move.To your final Q....maybe they did the Manning chase so they could justify sitting on their hands while the best and most expensive FA's get signed elsewhere, then they could sign the "best of the rest" and save $$$$$.....
If Manning was "so intrigued" with us, then he should have signed a contract.
you are right. a lot of times teams don't like to tell one another about their plans, but information gets out. for all we know peyton told the cardinals that he worked out for harbaugh. for petyon it would make sense that he would tell them that in order to drive up the price. I don't see how he would benefit from hiding it, while it obviously would benefit the 49ers to keep it from their own players because of alex smith.The NFL is a pretty tight circle. Just because the media likes to sensationalize things like "secret workout", I have no doubt front office and personnel of other teams knew Manning worked out with SF. I mean, C'mom, we have grainy video from a fence opening at Duke. Do you reallly think people in the NFL didn't know about his workout?
My background is PR, and I've found that the wisest course of action usually is to be open and to tell the complete truth.I agree with you, but I think the cardinals had to pursue PM. and I think whiz's statement is actually 100% on the money with their plans all along.
What if they didn't go after manning at all though and issued a statement to the press that said something along the lines of "we don't feel that we can sign peyton to a contract comapred to the other teams that are in pursuit" then imagine the backlash that the organization would have had to deal with especially when 2 teams in their division are in the sweepstakes.
I agree 100%My background is PR, and I've found that the wisest course of action usually is to be open and to tell the complete truth.
Few people do things because they. don't think they're doing the best thing for themselves. But they get into trouble when they feel embarrassed about secret motives or strategy and either cover up the truth or only tell part of the story.
The public is inclined to cut most people a break if they think they're being leveled with.
If Wiz & Co. felt the effort was touch & go because of the Kolb situation but that we'd still take our best shot and let the chips fall because we otherwise had a good story to tell, no one would criticize him from saying that from the very beginning.
Or if we told the Mannings (& the public) that we planned to sign Kolb in any event and it would be up to them to decide whether we'd remain a suitor, that would have been preferable to raising false hopes and not being forthright with the fans.
My background is PR, and I've found that the wisest course of action usually is to be open and to tell the complete truth.
Few people do things because they. don't think they're doing the best thing for themselves. But they get into trouble when they feel embarrassed about secret motives or strategy and either cover up the truth or only tell part of the story.
The public is inclined to cut most people a break if they think they're being leveled with.
If Wiz & Co. felt the effort was touch & go because of the Kolb situation but that we'd still take our best shot and let the chips fall because we otherwise had a good story to tell, no one would criticize him from saying that from the very beginning.
Or if we told the Mannings (& the public) that we planned to sign Kolb in any event and it would be up to them to decide whether we'd remain a suitor, that would have been preferable to raising false hopes and not being 100 forthright with the fans.
The above post was prematurely cut off by unexpected guests, and I never got the chance to edit it properly to make the point I wanted to make. It's just this:My background is PR, and I've found that the wisest course of action usually is to be open and to tell the complete truth...
The above post was prematurely cut off by unexpected guests, and I never got the chance to edit it properly to make the point I wanted to make. It's just this:
Anything most people do is done for noble reasons (at least in their own minds). As such, there is usually "a nugget of truth" behind what they give as their reasons for doing stuff - that often gets hidden or ommitted (because they want to score argumentative brownie points, promote an agenda or are afraid their original motives will be criticized).
Good PR seeks to drill down to that core truth-nugget and make it the center piece of any public statement because (1) people will usually cut slack if they feel they're being leveled with and (2) "credibility is gold" (i.e. it will make it easier for folks to believe what you tell them next).
Sometimes I feel our decision-makers - be they from business, politics or football-ownership - tend to be less informative than they need to be.That's all I wanted to say.
If we said at the very beginning that the Kolb contract/bonus made it unrealistic to pursue Manning coupled with a comnent that essentially said: "We think we'll be fine with Kolb and Skelton", our fans would have grasped that reality and it would quickly have become a non-issue.I think the cardinals had to pursue PM....
What if they didn't go after manning at all though and issued a statement to the press that said something along the lines of "we don't feel that we can sign peyton to a contract comapred to the other teams that are in pursuit" then imagine the backlash that the organization would have had to deal with especially when 2 teams in their division are in the sweepstakes.
If we said at the very beginning that the Kolb contract/bonus made it unrealistic to pursue Manning coupled with a comnent that essentially said: "We think we'll be fine with Kolb and Skelton", our fans would have grasped that reality and it would quickly have become a non-issue.Regarding other teams in our division - Early in the process, the Mannings issued a statement that Seattle wasn't on their radar screen and all indications were, at the time, that the Niners preferred to stick with Alex Smith instead of pursuing Manning.
ESPN had Shefter and Mortensen on(around 12:45am when I heard that) Mortensen said we are out of the running now. But he said something that really made me think. He said the Cards went plan B and paid Kolb his money. He then said Manning was extremely intrigued by the Cardinals. he said he is really close with Ken Whisenhunt and the pieces we had here. He basically said the Cardinals ran out of time and Manning wanted to be thorough!
John Clayton came on at 1:15am and was asked what happened to Miami and Arizona....Why are they out....He said for the Cardinals it was time!!! He said Manning was very interested...but time hit and they paid Kolb. Manning wasn't really interested in Miami.
This really pisses me off now!!! The Cardinals drug their feet. I mean why not cut Kolb...Go all in for Manning...It isn't like Skelton is worse than Kolb!!! If they would have went all in for Manning, and flew out there to watch him...Bring Fitzgerald to the meetings and workouts...I feel Manning might have chosen us.
You could hear it in Mortensen's voice when he said...Manning was extremely intrigued with us...and he is very close to Whiz!!!
WTF...why wouldn't we go all out like Denver and Tennessee??
You might be onto something. I just didn't see him going to Denver. I thought the Titans made more sense.I think it's pretty clear by picking Denver that the whole AFC vs NFC thing was a pretty big deal and he picked a team in the weakest conference in the AFC.
Yep.
I knew once we didn't sign him the chants of Graves sucks, fire Wiz, Cards are cheap, I hate Manning would take over.
Only 1 team was going to sign Manning & the rest of the teams along with it's fans would be highly disappointed. Oh well...the sun has rised in the East at my house