PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Even Gretz is on the Peyton Wagon...


mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:06 PM
"Under the direction of Clark Hunt and Scott Pioli the Chiefs have not been prone to bold, showy moves when it comes to player acquisition.

That should end over the next few weeks the Chiefs need to make a play for Peyton Manning."

The rest of the article:
http://www.bobgretz.com/chiefs-football/peyton-place-arrowhead-thursday-cup-ochiefs.html#more-26490

FAX
02-17-2012, 03:07 PM
He. Has. A. Broke. Neck.

FAX

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 03:09 PM
He. Has. A. Broke. Neck.

FAX

No. Concrete. Evidence. Just. Hearsay.

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:09 PM
You. Aren't. A. ****ing. Doctor.

Jerm
02-17-2012, 03:11 PM
Peyton Manning in traction is an improvement over Matt Cassel...sign em up...

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:12 PM
Peyton Manning in traction is an improvement over Matt Cassel...sign em up...

Exactly.

pr_capone
02-17-2012, 03:13 PM
I would love to see Manning in KC.

I don't see Manning as the kinda guy that would come back to the NFL just for another paycheck. If he felt he couldn't do it... I think he will retire.

SNR
02-17-2012, 03:13 PM
I. Like. Big. Bouncy. Titties.

SNR
02-17-2012, 03:24 PM
February 16, 2012 - James says:
Have to disagree with you Bob. Enough of the retread QBs. Fix the OL, sign Bowe and Carr, bring in a NT in FA and draft for depth in the middle and late rounds of the draft. Then next year do what it takes to trade up and get that franchise QB. I want no part of that chicken necked Manning in KC.

Talk about disillusioned. That's not happening, James. This team will never draft a franchise QB.

It looks like we either do this Peyton thing or we're fucked.

Chief_For_Life58
02-17-2012, 03:26 PM
Peyton is going to retire. 4 neck surgeries? Antonio pierce had the same neck problem and retired after one surgery on it. Jesus peyton went to europe to have some crazy surgery and its still not right. dudes retiring

SNR
02-17-2012, 03:28 PM
Peyton is going to retire. 4 neck surgeries? Antonio pierce had the same neck problem and retired after one surgery on it. Jesus peyton went to europe to have some crazy surgery and its still not right. dudes retiringDude what are you talking about? Priest Holmes had neck surgeries and played some games for us.

Chief_For_Life58
02-17-2012, 03:29 PM
Dude what are you talking about? Priest Holmes had neck surgeries and played some games for us.

yeah, and then almost died

ForeverChiefs58
02-17-2012, 03:31 PM
http://dailyshite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/funny-celebrity-pictures-dammit-jim-nows-not-the-right-time-for-that.jpg

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:32 PM
Talk about disillusioned. That's not happening, James. This team will never draft a franchise QB.

It looks like we either do this Peyton thing or we're ****ed.



Naturally if we do one, we can't do the other...

ERROR! ERROR! STATEMENT IS ILLOGICAL! OVERLOAD! ERROR!

FAX
02-17-2012, 03:34 PM
Talk about disillusioned. That's not happening, James. This team will never draft a franchise QB.

It looks like we either do this Peyton thing or we're ****ed.

Sadly, that's probably true.

Acquiring Manning is more Chiefs same ol', same ol'. It's a repeat of Montana part deux reboot sequel number 2. Remember how that turned out? He went down just when we needed him most.

I have visions of us finally in a position to win a playoff game when the whistle blows and the refs call time out because Manning's head is rolling toward the sideline by itself.

It may be a "win now" solution (or perceived as one) for a lot of people, but it's not the answer, for this fan at least. I want to see the Chiefs build a team that can compete year in and year out for the championship. That's what Dr. Evil promised us and that's what I want.

Either way, it won't last. Say Manning plays for another season or two. All that does is keep our QBOTF either on the bench or on somebody else's payroll forcing us to start over again in 2014. Is that really what we want to do? And that's assuming that he can even fling it. There are reports that he's having trouble gripping the ball.

FAX

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:34 PM
http://dailyshite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/funny-celebrity-pictures-dammit-jim-nows-not-the-right-time-for-that.jpg

Good timing, dude...

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 03:36 PM
Sadly, that's probably true.

Acquiring Manning is more Chiefs same ol', same ol'. It's a repeat of Montana part deux reboot sequel number 2. Remember how that turned out? He went down just when we needed him most.

I have visions of us finally in a position to win a playoff game when the whistle blows and the refs call time out because Manning's head is rolling toward the sideline by itself.

It may be a "win now" solution (or perceived as one) for a lot of people, but it's not the answer, for this fan at least. I want to see the Chiefs build a team that can compete year in and year out for the championship. That's what Dr. Evil promised us and that's what I want.

Either way, it won't last. Say Manning plays for another season or two. All that does is keep our QBOTF either on the bench or on somebody else's payroll forcing us to start over again in 2014. Is that really what we want to do? And that's assuming that he can even fling it. There are reports that he's having trouble gripping the ball.

FAX

Montana was the last Chiefs QB to win A FRIGGIN PLAYOFF GAME! SIGN HIM UP YESTERDAY!

Chief_For_Life58
02-17-2012, 03:37 PM
Resign orton. Orton would do a much better job with this team in the next 2 years then cassel would.

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:39 PM
Sadly, that's probably true.

Acquiring Manning is more Chiefs same ol', same ol'. It's a repeat of Montana part deux reboot sequel number 2. Remember how that turned out? He went down just when we needed him most.

I have visions of us finally in a position to win a playoff game when the whistle blows and the refs call time out because Manning's head is rolling toward the sideline by itself.

It may be a "win now" solution (or perceived as one) for a lot of people, but it's not the answer, for this fan at least. I want to see the Chiefs build a team that can compete year in and year out for the championship. That's what Dr. Evil promised us and that's what I want.

Either way, it won't last. Say Manning plays for another season or two. All that does is keep our QBOTF either on the bench or on somebody else's payroll forcing us to start over again in 2014. Is that really what we want to do? And that's assuming that he can even fling it. There are reports that he's having trouble gripping the ball.

FAX

Is Kirk going to have to talk you into self-destructing as well?

Chief_For_Life58
02-17-2012, 03:39 PM
If your a d lineman and your coming around peytons blind side. do you A) ring his clock so hard his head rolls off the sideline?"FAX", or B) arm tackle him to the ground nicely because hes peyton manning and hes had 4 neck injuries?

SNR
02-17-2012, 03:41 PM
Naturally if we do one, we can't do the other...

ERROR! ERROR! STATEMENT IS ILLOGICAL! OVERLOAD! ERROR!How many QBs on their last legs has this team signed since drafting Blackledge?

How many franchise QBs has this team drafted since drafting Blackledge?

Go fist a scorpion.

FAX
02-17-2012, 03:42 PM
Is Kirk going to have to talk you into self-destructing as well?

ROFL

I already have.

FAX

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:46 PM
How many QBs on their last legs has this team signed since drafting Blackledge?

How many franchise QBs has this team drafted since drafting Blackledge?

Go fist a scorpion.

I didn't realize Pioli had been in charge since the Blackledge days...

ERROR! ERROR! STATEMENT IS...

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:48 PM
ROFL

I already have.

FAX

Me also, but I do my best to cover it up...LMAO

durtyrute
02-17-2012, 03:49 PM
I want no part of Peyton.

Frazod
02-17-2012, 03:49 PM
It's a big risk, but I think signing Manning is exactly what we need.

It will instantly turn us into the Flavor of the Week, and our small market team of fucking nobodies desperately needs that. When the bandwagon idiots are buying Manning Chief jerseys, when people start watching our games, when we mean something to more people than just the few million within a couple of hundred miles of Kansas City, then we'll start getting the breaks, and more importantly, the calls.

Sadly, that's what a small market team not from Pittsburgh or Green Bay needs to make it in the WWNFL.

lcarus
02-17-2012, 03:49 PM
Sadly, that's probably true.

Acquiring Manning is more Chiefs same ol', same ol'. It's a repeat of Montana part deux reboot sequel number 2. Remember how that turned out? He went down just when we needed him most.

I have visions of us finally in a position to win a playoff game when the whistle blows and the refs call time out because Manning's head is rolling toward the sideline by itself.

It may be a "win now" solution (or perceived as one) for a lot of people, but it's not the answer, for this fan at least. I want to see the Chiefs build a team that can compete year in and year out for the championship. That's what Dr. Evil promised us and that's what I want.

Either way, it won't last. Say Manning plays for another season or two. All that does is keep our QBOTF either on the bench or on somebody else's payroll forcing us to start over again in 2014. Is that really what we want to do? And that's assuming that he can even fling it. There are reports that he's having trouble gripping the ball.

FAX

ROFL

pr_capone
02-17-2012, 03:50 PM
Sadly, that's probably true.

Acquiring Manning is more Chiefs same ol', same ol'. It's a repeat of Montana part deux reboot sequel number 2. Remember how that turned out? He went down just when we needed him most.

In 1993 there were 3 QB's taken in the first 3 rounds.

Bledsoe (1st overall), Mirer (2nd overall), Hobert (3rd rd)

In 94 there were 2 QB's taken in the first 3 rounds, both in the 1st.

Shuler (3rd overall), Dilfer (6th overall)

How did getting Montana set KC back? If anything, they took a shot and missed... but at least they took a shot.

durtyrute
02-17-2012, 03:50 PM
It's a big risk, but I think signing Manning is exactly what we need.

It will instantly turn us into the Flavor of the Week, and our small market team of fucking nobodies desperately needs that. When the bandwagon idiots are buying Manning Chief jerseys, when people start watching our games, when we mean something to more people than just the few million within a couple of hundred miles of Kansas City, then we'll start getting the breaks, and more importantly, the calls.

Sadly, that's what a small market team not from Pittsburgh or Green Bay needs to make it in the WWNFL.

I don't want to be the Peyton City Chiefs.

Frazod
02-17-2012, 03:51 PM
I don't want to be the Peyton City Chiefs.

Well, we've been the Nothing City Nothings since Montana left.

pr_capone
02-17-2012, 03:52 PM
I don't want to be the Peyton City Chiefs.

It would be the Kansas City Peyton's.

durtyrute
02-17-2012, 03:53 PM
It would be the Kansas City Peyton's.

Oh, well that's cool then. Can we replace the arrowhead with his face?

SNR
02-17-2012, 03:56 PM
I didn't realize Pioli had been in charge since the Blackledge days...

ERROR! ERROR! STATEMENT IS...You're saying Pioli has the hindsight and objectivity in his team-building philosophy to see beyond his Patriot/Parcells cronies to do what he should have done in 2009.

Fuck James. YOU'RE the delusional one.

ForeverChiefs58
02-17-2012, 03:59 PM
Peyton with no neck and his head stapled & ductaped to his shoulderpads, when he gets hit his head completely falls off and team trainers have to superglue it back on>>>Matt Cassel

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 04:02 PM
He. Has. A. Broke. Neck.

FAX

Actually this isn't true. They've said his neck is normal infact might be even a little stronger. The only question is about the nerve.

suds79
02-17-2012, 04:03 PM
I don't want to be the Peyton City Chiefs.

Yeah I'm cool with not winning and being a sub-par franchise also. :shake:

saphojunkie
02-17-2012, 04:03 PM
He's. Medically. Cleared. To. Play.

The people on here violently opposed to bringing in Peyton Manning have this bizarre, myopic world view where everything the Chiefs do is wrong.

By the way, bringing in Joe Montana was A FANTASTIC MOVE. Unless you don't like:

beating John Elway at Mile High.
winning playoff games.
winning the division.
going to the AFC Championship.

And the idea that Montana was knocked out of the game due to age or injury risk is historically, as well as biologically, inaccurate.

I promise promise promise promise you that concussions do not happen to weak players more than strong players. No matter how much Ray Lewis works out, his brain is just as fragile as Dexter McCluster's.

And I love all the people knocking Manning as a potential signing, becuz durr hez injured. As if the Chiefs are going to bring him in for a physical, find out his spine is made of balsa wood, and say, "Screw it, let's sign him anyway!"

Gee, maybe I shouldn't also buy that house that's currently ON FIRE.

God. Wake up. All Peyton Manning hypotheticals are based on the assumption that he clears all medical tests. Okay? Can we please move on from the "healthy neck" debate now?

jd1020
02-17-2012, 04:03 PM
You're saying Pioli has the hindsight and objectivity in his team-building philosophy to see beyond his Patriot/Parcells cronies to do what he should have done in 2009.

**** James. YOU'RE the delusional one.

Pioli has drafted 5 QBs. Only 1 would have passed Parcells check list.

saphojunkie
02-17-2012, 04:10 PM
Yeah I'm cool with not winning and being a sub-par franchise also. :shake:

Also, I'm skeptical about "happiness." And given the choice, I'll take the bus 10 times out of 10.

And I'm a big fan of fluorescent lights.

Oh, and pube smell? Sign me up.

God, I'm just addicted to anything starring Brendan Fraser.

You know what's the best? Fat free ranch dressing. I put it on steak.

Sometimes I just lay out for too long, just to make sure that I get sunburned.

I'm a real big Spanish Civil War buff. Fascinating history.

I'm taking Uzbekisani. It's going to be real useful if I'm ever in Uzbekistan.

I tried to quit cold turkey, but I just love cold turkey.

SNR
02-17-2012, 04:11 PM
Pioli has drafted 5 QBs. Only 1 would have passed Parcells check list.How many of those QBs were actually Pioli's?

So far in Kansas City he has traded for Matt Cassel and drafted Ricky Stanzi.

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 04:19 PM
You're saying Pioli has the hindsight and objectivity in his team-building philosophy to see beyond his Patriot/Parcells cronies to do what he should have done in 2009.

**** James. YOU'RE the delusional one.

SNR...I'm laughing at the superior intellect...ROFL

jd1020
02-17-2012, 04:22 PM
How many of those QBs were actually Pioli's?

So far in Kansas City he has traded for Matt Cassel and drafted Ricky Stanzi.

Whats your point?

When Pioli drafted Brady the Patriots had Bledsoe starting, so obviously they didn't need to look for a QB early. In Brady's first year, as an active player, he won the SB and went on to become one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game, so obviously they still didn't need to look for a QB early.

Since being in KC there have only been 3 QB's that looked/look like they can be potential franchise QBs. All of them were picked 1st overall.

SNR
02-17-2012, 04:23 PM
I'm laughing at your trollery. You're quite talented.

Oh, and I was serious about the whole scorpion fisting thing. You should give it a try. It's fun.

BoneKrusher
02-17-2012, 04:26 PM
He. Has. A. Broke. Neck.

FAX

still better than Castle.

BoneKrusher
02-17-2012, 04:28 PM
It would be the Kansas City Peyton's.

and Arrowhead would become Peyton's Place.

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 04:28 PM
Oh, and I was serious about the whole scorpion fisting thing. You should give it a try. It's fun.

I can't wait to hear how you know that.

htismaqe
02-17-2012, 04:29 PM
Pioli has drafted 5 QBs. Only 1 would have passed Parcells check list.

Brady wasn't a 3-year starter. Other than that, he satisfied all of the other criteria as far as I know.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 04:30 PM
Brady wasn't a 3-year starter.

Failed.

FAX
02-17-2012, 04:30 PM
I guess some of us will just have to disagree with one another.

For my part, I'll leave the discussion with this ... I am 100% opposed to bringing in Manning for the following reasons; cost, questions regarding his health, questions regarding his ability to perform, the fact that he's a Manning and a known whiner, and the fact that bringing in Manning is not the long-term solution we need at quarterback.

I respect any poster who feels otherwise because this is a free country and all people regardless of creed or color are entitled to their own opinion and they are endowed with the inalienable right to want a broke-neck, short-term, whiny-ass bitch of a quarterback if they so choose.

FAX

FAX
02-17-2012, 04:31 PM
still better than Castle.

I don't disagree with that, Mr. BoneKrusher.

FAX

jd1020
02-17-2012, 04:33 PM
Failed.

He also didn't win 23 games.

O.city
02-17-2012, 04:35 PM
I do agree that I want a long term answer. I want the Chiefs to draft a quarterback and him become a franchise elite quarterback that will be here for 15 years.


I don't see us in a position to do that this year, next year still probably gonna have to trade up but not use as much ammo. Why can't we add a few pieces, have an outstanding draft and add more young talent, bring in Manning (if he's healthy) try and win a SB next year. If we don't, we are right back where we are right now, with a young up and coming team in need of a quarterback. Get the guy next year if you have too.

pr_capone
02-17-2012, 04:37 PM
I do agree that I want a long term answer. I want the Chiefs to draft a quarterback and him become a franchise elite quarterback that will be here for 15 years.


I don't see us in a position to do that this year, next year still probably gonna have to trade up but not use as much ammo. Why can't we add a few pieces, have an outstanding draft and add more young talent, bring in Manning (if he's healthy) try and win a SB next year. If we don't, we are right back where we are right now, with a young up and coming team in need of a quarterback. Get the guy next year if you have too.

:clap:

Mr. Laz
02-17-2012, 04:39 PM
as long as it's on a play for pay type contract i'm ok with signing Manning.

also as long as we don't let it stop us from looking for young QB


only downside about it is that it would stop us from switching out Cassel for Orton as the backup plan guy. Hopefully Stanzi will beat out Cassel in that situation as well.

BoneKrusher
02-17-2012, 04:42 PM
I don't disagree with that, Mr. BoneKrusher.

FAX

sorry,
it's just because i have 0% faith in Castle leading the Chiefs to anything.

whoman69
02-17-2012, 04:44 PM
If Manning comes back and is close to the old Manning, then we have just as good a chance at the SB if any. We would also be in a better position to put together a package to move up in the draft. If he comes to KC and looks like Unitas in San Diego then we have a better chance to get a high pick for a QB.

O.city
02-17-2012, 04:47 PM
The biggest question with Manning is can he be healthy. If the guy is healthy, as smart as he is with all aspects of the game, he could possibly play at a SB level for what 3 years?

Where we are right now or atleast where we could be after this offseason roster wise, we aren't in a spot where we would need to be drafting guys that would have to come in and start right away. Yo could get guys that could upgrade some spots or even just continue to add depth and depth.

Then next year or whenever you have a guy that you really really like at qb, trade up picks in the first, grab the guy and teach him how you want.

FAX
02-17-2012, 04:48 PM
sorry,
it's just because i have 0% faith in Castle leading the Chiefs to anything.

I share that opinion, Mr. BoneKrusher. So far as I'm concerned, he's a dead end road that leads directly to the 7th circle of Hell.

I can't shake the feeling that Pioli remains fully committed to him, though. I know he's been talking about competition, but he's been saying that for 3 years. At this point, my remaining hope lies with Crennel and any potential influence he may have on the subject. I'm not confident that Pioli will budge, however. He seems like a no-budge kind of guy.

FAX

ChiefsNow
02-17-2012, 04:51 PM
I'll bet if we sign manning this place will come alive. I'm for it.

BoneKrusher
02-17-2012, 04:55 PM
I share that opinion, Mr. BoneKrusher. So far as I'm concerned, he's a dead end road that leads directly to the 7th circle of Hell.

I can't shake the feeling that Pioli remains fully committed to him, though. I know he's been talking about competition, but he's been saying that for 3 years. At this point, my remaining hope lies with Crennel and any potential influence he may have on the subject. I'm not confident that Pioli will budge, however. He seems like a no-budge kind of guy.

FAX

yeah, it's a sad situation we've got here.

htismaqe
02-17-2012, 04:56 PM
He also didn't win 23 games.

I was thinking he was pretty close to 23 - he started for 2 full seasons so somewhere between 24 and 26 games, right?

Regardless, he wasn't Mark Sanchez or Ryan Tannehill...

smittysbar
02-17-2012, 04:58 PM
I think it is a great idea.

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 05:24 PM
You're saying Pioli has the hindsight and objectivity in his team-building philosophy to see beyond his Patriot/Parcells cronies to do what he should have done in 2009.

**** James. YOU'RE the delusional one.

Good, I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

LMAO

O.city
02-17-2012, 05:26 PM
Shefter just said it's about 50 50 whether Mike Wallace and Adrian Foster will be back with the Steelers and Texans.

saphojunkie
02-17-2012, 05:34 PM
I guess some of us will just have to disagree with one another.

For my part, I'll leave the discussion with this ... I am 100% opposed to bringing in Manning for the following reasons; cost, questions regarding his health, questions regarding his ability to perform, the fact that he's a Manning and a known whiner, and the fact that bringing in Manning is not the long-term solution we need at quarterback.

I respect any poster who feels otherwise because this is a free country and all people regardless of creed or color are entitled to their own opinion and they are endowed with the inalienable right to want a broke-neck, short-term, whiny-ass bitch of a quarterback if they so choose.

FAX

admit it...this is the only real reason. Because...

1. It's not your money.
2. Even if it were, we are 63 million under the cap, and it wouldn't preclude us from signing multiple other free agents to long term contracts with no negative effects.
3. He won't be signed unless healthy.
4. If healthy, he is two and a half years removed from MVP The ONLY reason he couldn't perform is injury. See #3 above.
5. We could trade DOWN this year, instead of up, getting extra draft picks, which can then be packaged to move UP next year and get a young guy in a draft destined to be packed with first round talent at the QB position (considering two sure-fire first round QB this year elected to go back to school.)

EDITED for thinking he won the MVP in 2010, not 2009. My bad.

htismaqe
02-17-2012, 05:36 PM
admit it...this is the only real reason. Because...

1. It's not your money.
2. Even if it were, we are 63 million under the cap, and it wouldn't preclude us from signing multiple other free agents to long term contracts with no negative effects.
3. He won't be signed unless healthy.
4. If healthy, he is one and a half years removed from MVP. The ONLY reason he couldn't perform is injury. See #3 above.
5. We could trade DOWN this year, instead of up, getting extra draft picks, which can then be packaged to move UP next year and get a young guy in a draft destined to be packed with first round talent at the QB position (considering two sure-fire first round QB this year elected to go back to school.)

I'm convinced.

bevischief
02-17-2012, 05:52 PM
The Colt and Manning have made agreement so keep dreaming...

O.city
02-17-2012, 05:54 PM
Agreement on what?

whoman69
02-17-2012, 05:58 PM
The Colt and Manning have made agreement so keep dreaming...

Link?

Mr. Laz
02-17-2012, 06:07 PM
The Colt and Manning have made agreement so keep dreaming...

Link?
link? +2

Mr_Tomahawk
02-17-2012, 06:08 PM
The Colt and Manning have made agreement so keep dreaming...

Nut+Hooks.

Pasta Giant Meatball
02-17-2012, 06:08 PM
Oh, well that's cool then. Can we replace the arrowhead with his face?

See my av ROFL

saphojunkie
02-17-2012, 06:08 PM
Agreement on what?

They both recommend Trident.

Pasta Giant Meatball
02-17-2012, 06:11 PM
Shefter just said it's about 50 50 whether Mike Wallace and Adrian Foster will be back with the Steelers and Texans.

Ever hear of the franchise tag?

Easy 6
02-17-2012, 06:20 PM
I've been pretty vocal opposing this move, but damn, something needs to happen.

We're out of the Luck sweepstakes & Pioli isnt going to Ditka the draft for RGIII, do we want another playoff one & done with Cassel or Orton, maybe go with Stanzi & struggle as he adjusts?

A reasonably healthy Manning would be the best KC qb since Joe Cool, hands down, he would have a full complement of skill players to work with & the nationwide interest he would bring could only be a blessing.

By signing him we could dump both Orton & Cassel with NO regrets, leaving Stanzi to learn from & back him up, if Manning goes down we still have the kid & can then go get his competition/usurper in 2013.

Its not our money, why not spend some of it on atleast a chance to be special, it'd be nice for this team to be special again/understatement of the decade

FAX
02-17-2012, 06:25 PM
Sometimes people stay in the game even when the time has long past that they should give it up. The game is all they know and all they've ever known. It's difficult to leave it behind.

Given that, Manning could be medically cleared to play and still be in jeopardy of severe, brain-ending injury from a single hit. Plus, I've known a lot of really good doctors in my life and I also know how wrong they can sometimes be.

Just a thought.

FAX

kysirsoze
02-17-2012, 06:34 PM
He's. Medically. Cleared. To. Play.

The people on here violently opposed to bringing in Peyton Manning have this bizarre, myopic world view where everything the Chiefs do is wrong.

By the way, bringing in Joe Montana was A FANTASTIC MOVE. Unless you don't like:

beating John Elway at Mile High.
winning playoff games.
winning the division.
going to the AFC Championship.

And the idea that Montana was knocked out of the game due to age or injury risk is historically, as well as biologically, inaccurate.

I promise promise promise promise you that concussions do not happen to weak players more than strong players. No matter how much Ray Lewis works out, his brain is just as fragile as Dexter McCluster's.

And I love all the people knocking Manning as a potential signing, becuz durr hez injured. As if the Chiefs are going to bring him in for a physical, find out his spine is made of balsa wood, and say, "Screw it, let's sign him anyway!"

Gee, maybe I shouldn't also buy that house that's currently ON FIRE.

God. Wake up. All Peyton Manning hypotheticals are based on the assumption that he clears all medical tests. Okay? Can we please move on from the "healthy neck" debate now?

admit it...this is the only real reason. Because...

1. It's not your money.
2. Even if it were, we are 63 million under the cap, and it wouldn't preclude us from signing multiple other free agents to long term contracts with no negative effects.
3. He won't be signed unless healthy.
4. If healthy, he is two and a half years removed from MVP The ONLY reason he couldn't perform is injury. See #3 above.
5. We could trade DOWN this year, instead of up, getting extra draft picks, which can then be packaged to move UP next year and get a young guy in a draft destined to be packed with first round talent at the QB position (considering two sure-fire first round QB this year elected to go back to school.)

EDITED for thinking he won the MVP in 2010, not 2009. My bad.


/Thread

FAX
02-17-2012, 06:44 PM
In 1993 there were 3 QB's taken in the first 3 rounds.

Bledsoe (1st overall), Mirer (2nd overall), Hobert (3rd rd)

In 94 there were 2 QB's taken in the first 3 rounds, both in the 1st.

Shuler (3rd overall), Dilfer (6th overall)

How did getting Montana set KC back? If anything, they took a shot and missed... but at least they took a shot.

I've seen this argument a lot in various debates over the past couple of years and I struggle to make sense of it. No one knows what the future holds when you change the circumstances in the present. A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil and a gust of wind in New York causes a girl's dress to fly up over her head revealing her bright purple, grape-flavored, edible underdrawers. Who knew?

Besides, I didn't say Montana "set us back". I made several points in that post that weren't directly related to each other. They were kind of stacked up in support of my position on the matter. The Montana reference had to do with the idea that we brought in an old veteran with a pedigree who didn't last very long because an injury took him out of the game. A crucial game. And he didn't return. People who say that Manning is ready to play aren't taking into account that age and hits add up over time ... just as they have for every quarterback to ever play the game. Older bones are more brittle. Those who don't think that the odds are good that a serious injury could affect Manning aren't thinking clearly or facing reality. Manning's sufficiently banged up to the point that it's kept him out of action for an entire year. We're not talking about an ankle sprain, here. Besides, he's a guy who's never liked pressure or taking hits. How do you think he'll feel about that now?

As for the notion that Manning wouldn't "hold us back", consider this; every snap that Manning takes is one snap that Stanzi or another young QB with upside potential and a need for experience doesn't receive. Meanwhile, all that emerging, young talent we're so happy about is growing older. Since Manning won't be with us long, that's something to take into account. If, that is, you want to build for the long-term.

I want a stud quarterback as badly as the next guy. I just want a younger guy whose body is still reasonably intact.

FAX

WhiteWhale
02-17-2012, 06:54 PM
No. Concrete. Evidence. Just. Hearsay.

He's had neck fusion and multiple clean up surgeries.

That's a fact.

When things go right, you don't go back in 3 more times to fix it.

Epic Fail 007
02-17-2012, 07:06 PM
Well if he wants a shot to win now this is thee best place for him now.

FAX
02-17-2012, 07:08 PM
He's had neck fusion and multiple clean up surgeries.

That's a fact.

When things go right, you don't go back in 3 more times to fix it.

I think we're in the midst of a multiple Manningasm. That's okay, though. To each, his own.

Here's another thought from the Proceed With Caution perspective, though.

The Colts have not expressed a ton of enthusiasm for bringing Manning back, right? It appears, instead, that they're going for Luck at #1 and starting over.

If that's true, and if their doctors believe Manning is healthy and ready to play and all, why would they throw away this bird for one in the bush? Sure, Luck is as close to a sure thing as you can get coming out of the draft (according to the pundits, anyhow). But Manning is a proven winner ... if he's healthy and can throw ... it's only a 7 million dollar difference, they say. With the new CBA, rookies are a lot cheaper than they used to be ... even quarterbacks ... which means they can afford both. So ... why aren't they going with what they know and letting Luck learn from him for a year or two?

FAX

jd1020
02-17-2012, 07:12 PM
I think we're in the midst of a multiple Manningasm. That's okay, though. To each, his own.

Here's another thought from the Proceed With Caution perspective, though.

The Colts have not expressed a ton of enthusiasm for bringing Manning back, right? It appears, instead, that they're going for Luck at #1 and starting over.

If that's true, and if their doctors believe Manning is healthy and ready to play and all, why would they throw away this bird for one in the bush? Sure, Luck is as close to a sure thing as you can get coming out of the draft (according to the pundits, anyhow). But Manning is a proven winner ... if he's healthy and can throw ... it's only a 7 million dollar difference, they say. With the new CBA, rookies are a lot cheaper than they used to be ... even quarterbacks ... which means they can afford both. So ... why aren't they going with what they know and letting Luck learn from him for a year or two?

FAX

Mannings roster bonus is enough to cover what Lucks entire rookie contract will get him, and then some.

Its pretty easy to see how they aren't to enthusiastic about bringing Manning back. I'm sure when they offered that contract they didn't expect to go 2-14 because he was out for the year and have the #1 pick with Andrew Luck waiting in the wings.

Psyko Tek
02-17-2012, 07:32 PM
I guess some of us will just have to disagree with one another.

For my part, I'll leave the discussion with this ... I am 100% opposed to bringing in Manning for the following reasons; cost, questions regarding his health, questions regarding his ability to perform, the fact that he's a Manning and a known whiner, and the fact that bringing in Manning is not the long-term solution we need at quarterback.

I respect any poster who feels otherwise because this is a free country and all people regardless of creed or color are entitled to their own opinion and they are endowed with the inalienable right to want a broke-neck, short-term, whiny-ass bitch of a quarterback if they so choose.

FAX

you forgot the elf dancing thing that pissed everybody off on here

Easy 6
02-17-2012, 07:35 PM
FAX & jd both making excellent points, there are great arguments for either side, a few weeks ago i was fervently against the guy in KC.

I do think the colts move on, even though they could presumably afford to keep both. The vibe around the whole situation is bad... a frenzy of oddly public back & forth between the two camps, followed by bland, coldly diplomatic statements of support, as if trying to tamp down their error.

Manning may be a whiner, but Irsay has been the dick in this imo, as someone asked in another thread, what NFL owner tweets about sensitive situations like this? The guy thinks he's ****ing Dana White.

el borracho
02-17-2012, 07:37 PM
Someone needs to make a "Broke Neck Mountain" photoshop of Manning.

kysirsoze
02-17-2012, 07:40 PM
Someone needs to make a "Broke Neck Mountain" photoshop of Manning.

And Irsay.

whoman69
02-17-2012, 07:44 PM
I think we're in the midst of a multiple Manningasm. That's okay, though. To each, his own.

Here's another thought from the Proceed With Caution perspective, though.

The Colts have not expressed a ton of enthusiasm for bringing Manning back, right? It appears, instead, that they're going for Luck at #1 and starting over.

If that's true, and if their doctors believe Manning is healthy and ready to play and all, why would they throw away this bird for one in the bush? Sure, Luck is as close to a sure thing as you can get coming out of the draft (according to the pundits, anyhow). But Manning is a proven winner ... if he's healthy and can throw ... it's only a 7 million dollar difference, they say. With the new CBA, rookies are a lot cheaper than they used to be ... even quarterbacks ... which means they can afford both. So ... why aren't they going with what they know and letting Luck learn from him for a year or two?

FAX

Because Luck will get more out of it if he is on the field. Playing behind Manning does not get one prepared. He takes all the snaps. The Colts are rebuilding. You don't do that with a 36 year old QB. Unlike Rodgers, Luck should be ready to play now.

FAX
02-17-2012, 07:51 PM
Because Luck will get more out of it if he is on the field. Playing behind Manning does not get one prepared. He takes all the snaps. The Colts are rebuilding. You don't do that with a 36 year old QB. Unlike Rodgers, Luck should be ready to play now.

That's what I've been saying about our situation. What's good for the goose is also good for the goose's posse. When it comes to offense, we have a little rebuilding to do ourselves.

I know that we don't have Luck. However, the argument could be made that Stanzi needs the snaps more than Luck does.

And although you're completely correct, Mr. whoman69, the reality is that there is a major transition from college to the pros which requires some serious adjustment ... particularly for quarterbacks ... and Luck will be no exception.

FAX

tk13
02-17-2012, 07:55 PM
The medically cleared to play thing was a PR move by Manning and his doctor, and it only meant his neck was healed, supposedly. It has absolutely nothing to do with his arm atrophy or nerve regeneration. He was never cleared by the Colts' doctors. They didn't even say medically cleared to play... it was medically cleared to resume his career, or something like that.

FAX
02-17-2012, 07:57 PM
you forgot the elf dancing thing that pissed everybody off on here

Yeah ... I should have included that point. It might have helped.

I've taken a beating for some positions I've taken around here in the past, but this is surprising to me. I see some potential upside to the idea of bringing in Manning, but I see far more potential downside. He's being over-sold, in my opinion.

The notion of benching Cassel is highly appealing to me. Like a dream come true, really. But, I don't want to see Pez Manning's head pop off at Arrowhead, either.

FAX

Epic Fail 007
02-17-2012, 08:18 PM
I really hope Luck ends up being nothing but average so everyone will shut up about it.And my bet he will,next David Klingler WOO HOO

WhiteWhale
02-17-2012, 08:20 PM
I really hope Luck ends up being nothing but average so everyone will shut up about it.And my bet he will,next David Klingler WOO HOO

I hope so. I hate the Colts. QB spoiled assholes. Unitas.. Manning, and now Luck... ugh. F U Indy.

WhiteWhale
02-17-2012, 08:21 PM
I really hope Luck ends up being nothing but average so everyone will shut up about it.And my bet he will,next David Klingler WOO HOO

I hope so. I hate the Colts. QB spoiled assholes. Unitas.. Manning, and now Luck... ugh.

whoman69
02-17-2012, 08:38 PM
That's what I've been saying about our situation. What's good for the goose is also good for the goose's posse. When it comes to offense, we have a little rebuilding to do ourselves.

I know that we don't have Luck. However, the argument could be made that Stanzi needs the snaps more than Luck does.

And although you're completely correct, Mr. whoman69, the reality is that there is a major transition from college to the pros which requires some serious adjustment ... particularly for quarterbacks ... and Luck will be no exception.

FAX

Luck will make some mistakes. No doubt about it. But better he makes those mistakes now when they won't be competing for the playoffs. The difference between Luck and Stanzi is that even in his 2nd year nobody here can say for certain if Stanzi is ready to play.

Mr. Laz
02-18-2012, 12:41 AM
I hope so. I hate the Colts. QB spoiled assholes. Unitas.. Manning, and now Luck... ugh.

it would serve Irsay right if Luck turned out to be a steaming pile of shit and Manning got healthy and took the Chiefs to back-to-back super bowls.

:p

BoneKrusher
02-18-2012, 08:14 AM
since Manning has been cleared to play here's what Pioli needs to do with the 64 million:

1. Sign Manning once he is released.
2. Upgrade the OLine
3. Resign Bowe and Carr

...and we'll go far into the playoffs, maybe all the way.

call me Captain Obvious.

Wallcrawler
02-18-2012, 09:14 AM
Sadly, that's probably true.

Acquiring Manning is more Chiefs same ol', same ol'. It's a repeat of Montana part deux reboot sequel number 2. Remember how that turned out? He went down just when we needed him most.

Youre right. We totally shouldve stuck with Dave Kreig.

I have visions of us finally in a position to win a playoff game when the whistle blows and the refs call time out because Manning's head is rolling toward the sideline by itself.

Youre psychic now? Well then tell us how a decapitated Manning's statistics stack up with a completely braindead Matt Cassel, and then explain the difference.

It may be a "win now" solution (or perceived as one) for a lot of people, but it's not the answer, for this fan at least. I want to see the Chiefs build a team that can compete year in and year out for the championship.

Lol. Win now. TRY WIN AT ALL MAN!! Its been seventeen fecking years since they won a playoff game! Its time to make a fecking move.

That's what Dr. Evil promised us and that's what I want.

Yeah, and King Carl promised you a five year plan for winning a title. Promises are made to be broken.

Either way, it won't last. Say Manning plays for another season or two. All that does is keep our QBOTF either on the bench or on somebody else's payroll forcing us to start over again in 2014.

Um, who is our QBOTF again? I wasnt aware we had anything more than spitshine polished shit playing under center.


Is that really what we want to do? And that's assuming that he can even fling it. There are reports that he's having trouble gripping the ball.

Obviously if he cant throw the football, we dont want him and Manning doesnt strike me as the kind of guy who will play if he cant actually play the position.

As far as the neck thing goes, he's fine in that regard. The problem with him is the nerve, not the fragility of his neck/spine. In any case, you give me Manning's intelligence and even 70% of his former arm strength and youve still got a helluva QB on your hands.

Perhaps you like watching Matt Cassel's head NEVER move from one side of the field during a pass, AND THEN flinging up some noodle armed duck when everyone knows where its going, but a lot of us are sick of that shit.

FAX
.

FAX
02-18-2012, 10:06 AM
There's an old Moldavian saying, "Desperation is the mother of dumbassery, but they don't know who the father is."

Unfortunately, the Moldavians didn't say anything about the troubling literalism that's overtaken this board lately, though. So allow me to assist you, Mr. Gallbladder ... when I use the term "broke neck", I am using the words in a figurative sense intended to represent Manning's overall health issues which, apparently, stem from a problem affecting his cervical vertebrae and resulting in nerve damage and related muscle atrophy. (All according, of course, to press reports as I am not his personal, consulting physician.)

Also, if you check my prior posts, you will see that I am no fan of Cassel's. Nor, am I a member of Dave Krieg's fan club. I believe in fresh, hot apple pie straight out of the oven, proportionate tittahs, and a young, stud quarterback who can lead this team to success over the next decade or longer.

Manning isn't 100%. He may not even be 5%. We don't know. His doctors can say what they want ... and probably will since they're on his payroll. Of course, if Clark and Pioli want to fill seats with a broken-down quarterback who doesn't know when it's time to hang up his cleats, they can find a doctor who will clear him, too. And I'm certain there are many like you, Mr. Ballgargler, who will line up to sing their praises and buy the tickets.

For my part, I remain unconvinced that is the best course of action for this team. When you think about this situation with an objective, clear head, there are a lot of potential problems. For example, even before his injury, Manning never liked to take a hit. I doubt his attitude about hanging tough in the pocket has improved any since his multiple surgeries. And, an NFL quarterback who's afraid to take a hit isn't an NFL quarterback at all.

I do, however, hope that I am wrong and the Manningites are right. Maybe he's perfectly healthy and maybe the Colts are making a mistake and maybe he'll like Daboll and maybe the Chiefs will acquire him and maybe he will win us a couple of Super Bowls and maybe he won't be paralyzed for life. That seems like a whole lot of maybes, though.

FAX

boogblaster
02-18-2012, 10:12 AM
If and that's a big word here .. we happen to get Manning we'll have to protect him .. and that is the main thing we cant do at this point of time ......

Frazod
02-18-2012, 10:50 AM
If and that's a big word here .. we happen to get Manning we'll have to protect him .. and that is the main thing we cant do at this point of time ......

Uh, if Manning is our quarterback, our lineman can hold every play and get away with it.

That's one of the perks that comes with the package.

Chiefnj2
02-18-2012, 10:54 AM
I propose a signature bet with another Planet member who is on the Manning bandwagon. I bet Cassel throws more regular season TD passes this season than Manning. Who wants in?

BoneKrusher
02-18-2012, 12:02 PM
I propose a signature bet with another Planet member who is on the Manning bandwagon. I bet Cassel throws more regular season TD passes this season than Manning. Who wants in?
i'll take your bet.

DeezNutz
02-18-2012, 12:09 PM
There's an old Moldavian saying, "Desperation is the mother of dumbassery, but they don't know who the father is."

Unfortunately, the Moldavians didn't say anything about the troubling literalism that's overtaken this board lately, though. So allow me to assist you, Mr. Gallbladder ... when I use the term "broke neck", I am using the words in a figurative sense intended to represent Manning's overall health issues which, apparently, stem from a problem affecting his cervical vertebrae and resulting in nerve damage and related muscle atrophy. (All according, of course, to press reports as I am not his personal, consulting physician.)

Also, if you check my prior posts, you will see that I am no fan of Cassel's. Nor, am I a member of Dave Krieg's fan club. I believe in fresh, hot apple pie straight out of the oven, proportionate tittahs, and a young, stud quarterback who can lead this team to success over the next decade or longer.

Manning isn't 100%. He may not even be 5%. We don't know. His doctors can say what they want ... and probably will since they're on his payroll. Of course, if Clark and Pioli want to fill seats with a broken-down quarterback who doesn't know when it's time to hang up his cleats, they can find a doctor who will clear him, too. And I'm certain there are many like you, Mr. Ballgargler, who will line up to sing their praises and buy the tickets.

For my part, I remain unconvinced that is the best course of action for this team. When you think about this situation with an objective, clear head, there are a lot of potential problems. For example, even before his injury, Manning never liked to take a hit. I doubt his attitude about hanging tough in the pocket has improved any since his multiple surgeries. And, an NFL quarterback who's afraid to take a hit isn't an NFL quarterback at all.

I do, however, hope that I am wrong and the Manningites are right. Maybe he's perfectly healthy and maybe the Colts are making a mistake and maybe he'll like Daboll and maybe the Chiefs will acquire him and maybe he will win us a couple of Super Bowls and maybe he won't be paralyzed for life. That seems like a whole lot of maybes, though.

FAX

LMAO. Time to revise that draftabulator video, since our man FAX has gone over to the dark side. When the insulting Mr. makes an appearance, Mr., there's very little mrstery.

DeezNutz
02-18-2012, 12:11 PM
And if Pioli would make this type of move, the apology threads should dominate page one. Some of us were bashing Carl Pioli before it was trendy.

BossChief
02-18-2012, 12:14 PM
If I was running this franchise, I'd sign Peyton Manning and draft Ryan Tannehill in the first round and either trade Cassel during the draft or cut him shortly after.

By the time Mannings head pops off, either Ryan or Ricky will have emerged as the heir apparent.

Damn, that would be thrilling.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-18-2012, 12:16 PM
If I was running this franchise, I'd sign Peyton Manning and draft Ryan Tannehill in the first round and either trade Cassel during the draft or cut him shortly after.

By the time Mannings head pops off, either Ryan or Ricky will have emerged as the heir apparent.

Damn, that would be thrilling.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

tk13
02-18-2012, 12:18 PM
If you think that, you might as well just draft Tannehill and start him, because there's the possibility he might be more ready to play week 1 than Peyton will be.

BigMeatballDave
02-18-2012, 12:19 PM
And if Pioli would make this type of move, the apology threads should dominate page one. Some of us were bashing Carl Pioli before it was trendy.

Apologize for what?

BossChief
02-18-2012, 12:22 PM
If you think that, you might as well just draft Tannehill and start him, because there's the possibility he might be more ready to play week 1 than Peyton will be.

The only scenario I would draft Tannehill is if it was with full expectations of going the full blown Aaron Rogers route.

This won't make sense to some here, but if we sign Orton my pick would be Trent Richardson.

If it's Peyton, Tannehill come on down.

20 games as starter dicatates that he needs to sit and learn.

If we end up in a pinch and need someone to take the field sooner, Stanzi is our guy.

DeezNutz
02-18-2012, 12:25 PM
The only scenario I would draft Tannehill is if it was with full expectations of going the full blown Aaron Rogers route.

This won't make sense to some here, but if we sign Orton my pick would be Trent Richardson.

If it's Peyton, Tannehill come on down.

20 games as starter dicatates that he needs to sit and learn.

So, if you sign Orton, you go "win-now mode" with a QB who cannot win the SB? Yet if you sign Manning, a QB (when healthy) who can win the SB, but follow that up with a move dedicated to the future?

Makes sense...I guess.

If you believe that Tannehill can be a franchise QB, you draft him in the first, no matter what. And Stanzi is no one's guy.

tk13
02-18-2012, 12:27 PM
So you wanted a 5th round rookie with no rookie workouts or training camp to start this past season, but a guy we take just outside the top 10 of the draft should sit. That makes sense.

Although I'd agree I'm not sure if any of other QB's outside Luck/Griffin should start right away... I think there's pretty solid evidence that letting these guys sit for a bit to learn the game isn't a bad thing. Just depends on the guy... most people don't have the patience to wait.

Wallcrawler
02-18-2012, 12:28 PM
Also, if you check my prior posts, you will see that I am no fan of Cassel's. Nor, am I a member of Dave Krieg's fan club. I believe in fresh, hot apple pie straight out of the oven, proportionate tittahs, and a young, stud quarterback who can lead this team to success over the next decade or longer.

So whats all this bitching about Joe Montana part 2? If you didnt think Kreig was that great, and you LIKED seeing the Chiefs not only win in the playoffs, but get 1 game away from the big one, why would you have a problem with the Chiefs trying to have that happen again?

Are you so accustomed to mediocrity that you need to languish in it for another seventeen years? Newsflash Mr. Psychic, but eh, the Chiefs havent really done shit since Joe left and you seem to think that they are just going to draft a QB and build a championship team without anything more than a pipedream to back up that statement.

Manning isn't 100%.

Neither was Joe when we got him. The 49ers didnt let him walk just out of sheer stupidity. He was aging, and banged up and they wanted to go younger. He still had it, and Im betting that if Manning is wanting to play, he still has it too.

He may not even be 5%. We don't know. His doctors can say what they want ... and probably will since they're on his payroll. Of course, if Clark and Pioli want to fill seats with a broken-down quarterback who doesn't know when it's time to hang up his cleats, they can find a doctor who will clear him, too. And I'm certain there are many like you, Mr. Ballgargler, who will line up to sing their praises and buy the tickets.

Clearly, youre going to ride this "Broken down QB pays off doctors to say he can play" schtick until the wheels fall off. Obviously if he's signed here, he's gonna have to show what he's got. We've got some real dumbasses in the front office, no question (paying Shat Castle 64 million...anyone?), but I doubt that if Manning is brought in the contract is going to be done sight unseen in regard to his physical ability.

If you dont want Manning, fine. But this whole "He really cant play, he's just using doctors on his payroll" is feckin weaksauce.

For my part, I remain unconvinced that is the best course of action for this team. When you think about this situation with an objective, clear head, there are a lot of potential problems.

Versus the ones that come with keeping Cassel/Orton at the helm. Heh.


For example, even before his injury, Manning never liked to take a hit. I doubt his attitude about hanging tough in the pocket has improved any since his multiple surgeries. And, an NFL quarterback who's afraid to take a hit isn't an NFL quarterback at all.

Yeah, those records he's got, his ability to read a defense and basicly be an offensive coordinator in pads, and that whole Superbowl Championship Ring are a complete fraud because he's not looking to get killed on the field.

Next joke please.

I do, however, hope that I am wrong and the Manningites are right. Maybe he's perfectly healthy and maybe the Colts are making a mistake and maybe he'll like Daboll and maybe the Chiefs will acquire him and maybe he will win us a couple of Super Bowls and maybe he won't be paralyzed for life. That seems like a whole lot of maybes, though.

Id like you to name a QB on the Chiefs roster, or in this upcoming draft that the Chiefs have a shot in hell at getting that provide a better chance to win than Peyton Manning does.

You seem to think that we're going to be drafting a stud QB this year. We arent. We have Cassel, Orton (maybe) and Stanzi. A finer stack of shit you wont find on any other team in the league at QB.

We can play Cassel and win 6-7 games, maybe win 8 with Orton if he stays, go 3-13 with Stanzi, or we could get a deal done with Manning that gives this team a legitimate shot this year.


FAX

.

BossChief
02-18-2012, 12:34 PM
I just realized that I forgot to add the caveat that Peyton would have to be closer to 85-90% for that scenario, as well.

I think if that's the case, we wouldn't need a "Trent Richardson" type investment into the running back position...we could get by with a 2, 3 or 4th rounder to compliment Charles and that would allow us to spend that first on trying to make a move to solidify the quarterback position for the next 10 years.

Also, Deez, if you had seen as much of Stanzi as me and many other respected posters have, your opinion of him would be vastly different.

I guarantee you that.

DeezNutz
02-18-2012, 12:36 PM
I just realized that I forgot to add the caveat that Peyton would have to be closer to 85-90% for that scenario, as well.

I think if that's the case, we wouldn't need a "Trent Richardson" type investment into the running back position...we could get by with a 2, 3 or 4th rounder to compliment Charles and that would allow us to spend that first on trying to make a move to solidify the quarterback position for the next 10 years.

Also, Deez, if you had seen as much of Stanzi as me and many other respected posters have, your opinion of him would be vastly different.

I guarantee you that.

OK, I'd be thrilled to be wrong about Stanzi. If he's the goods, though, he should be starting week one, and the Chiefs should draft Richardson, if he's available.

Easiest pick in franchise history.

tk13
02-18-2012, 12:36 PM
I will say the Tannehill thing makes sense from the perspective that I think it'll take Manning two years to get back to normal, if he ever does. This is not a rebuilt knee we're talking about... we're talking about nerve regeneration in the arm. It might never happen. But even if he plays this year I think he's going to be rusty.

I think it sounds like a Chiefs move though. Then he'll either take a hit in week 3 that ends his career, or he comes out like a pitcher who has to learn to work without his fastball... so the fans turn on him that first season while he tries to do it. We cut him, he goes somewhere else the following year and has a career year like Favre did with the Vikings.

BossChief
02-18-2012, 12:42 PM
So you wanted a 5th round rookie with no rookie workouts or training camp to start this past season, but a guy we take just outside the top 10 of the draft should sit. That makes sense.

Although I'd agree I'm not sure if any of other QB's outside Luck/Griffin should start right away... I think there's pretty solid evidence that letting these guys sit for a bit to learn the game isn't a bad thing. Just depends on the guy... most people don't have the patience to wait.

I didn't start the Stanzi should start thread until after Cassel went down and Palko played one half of a football game.

Let's stick to the facts. I think Stanzi will be a better quarterback than most here think he will be (I'm looking right at you, Deez) but I also acknowledged over and over that the lockout hurt him because he didn't even get his playbook till TC.

I probably said 100 times that if it weren't for his lacking knowledge of the playbook and the lockout situation, he should have started.

whoman69
02-18-2012, 03:01 PM
If you think that, you might as well just draft Tannehill and start him, because there's the possibility he might be more ready to play week 1 than Peyton will be.

Doubt that. He's got 20 college starts.

Epic Fail 007
02-18-2012, 03:17 PM
If you think that, you might as well just draft Tannehill and start him, because there's the possibility he might be more ready to play week 1 than Peyton will be.

Well I have seen it rumored in a mock that we might take Tannehill.

milkman
02-18-2012, 03:52 PM
If you sign Peyton Manning with the expectation, or hope, that he'll be your starter for the next 3 to 4 years, then you wait till next year to draft your QBoTF.

O.city
02-18-2012, 04:17 PM
If you sign Peyton Manning with the expectation, or hope, that he'll be your starter for the next 3 to 4 years, then you wait till next year to draft your QBoTF.

This.

htismaqe
02-18-2012, 04:50 PM
OK, I'd be thrilled to be wrong about Stanzi. If he's the goods, though, he should be starting week one, and the Chiefs should draft Richardson, if he's available.

Easiest pick in franchise history.

Under those circumstances, I take Richardson no questions asked.

SNR
02-18-2012, 06:20 PM
OK, I'd be thrilled to be wrong about Stanzi. If he's the goods, though, he should be starting week one, and the Chiefs should draft Richardson, if he's available.

Easiest pick in franchise history.Hey, imagine if we had any kind of idea how he fares under pressure as a starting QB during the regular season for a few games!

Too bad...

whoman69
02-18-2012, 06:26 PM
Hey, imagine if we had any kind of idea how he fares under pressure as a starting QB during the regular season for a few games!

Too bad...

To do that he'd have to go in a game. Crazy talk.

whoman69
02-18-2012, 06:41 PM
If you sign Peyton Manning with the expectation, or hope, that he'll be your starter for the next 3 to 4 years, then you wait till next year to draft your QBoTF.

This.

There's pluses and minuses there. If you have Peyton in hand and you believe Tannenhill can become the QBotF there's no need to wait. If Peyton is Peyton, we will have a worse pick next year and it will be harder to trade up even though we may have some expendable picks. If Peyton is Unitas '73 then we tank anyway and need that QB to be ready the next year.

milkman
02-18-2012, 06:46 PM
There's pluses and minuses there. If you have Peyton in hand and you believe Tannenhill can become the QBotF there's no need to wait. If Peyton is Peyton, we will have a worse pick next year and it will be harder to trade up even though we may have some expendable picks. If Peyton is Unitas '73 then we tank anyway and need that QB to be ready the next year.

With so many teams filling their QB needs in this and the last draft, not to mention Matt Flynn in free agency, trading up next year will not be as problematic as this year, since there will be fewer bidders.

And by all accounts, the QB class will be better.

If Manning tanks, we could be in a better position to win with a rookie QB next year than the Bengals with Dalton in 2011.

htismaqe
02-18-2012, 06:49 PM
With so many teams filling their QB needs in this and the last draft, not to mention Matt Flynn in free agency, trading up next year will not be as problematic as this year, since there will be fewer bidders.

And by all accounts, the QB class will be better.

If Manning tanks, we could be in a better position to win with a rookie QB next year than the Bengals with Dalton in 2011.

Precisely.

BossChief
02-18-2012, 07:08 PM
With so many teams filling their QB needs in this and the last draft, not to mention Matt Flynn in free agency, trading up next year will not be as problematic as this year, since there will be fewer bidders.

And by all accounts, the QB class will be better.

If Manning tanks, we could be in a better position to win with a rookie QB next year than the Bengals with Dalton in 2011.

If Manning returns to form, we wouldn't be in a position to draft a dranchise guy for at least 2-3 years.

Drafting Tannehill gives us a situation that he is able to sit back and learn everything to do with the position for a couple years and for either he or Stanzi to be ready when Peyton hangs em up so that we don't have to waste some prime years of guys on their last legs.

All in all, I am and have been sick of the "let's wait till next year" talk.

If we arent gonna make a move to trade up this year, what makes you thin we would move from the mid to late 20s all the way up to a position to take a real franchise qb option next year?

It would still take multiple premium picks to do so, next year.

Signing Peyton and drafting Tannehill would give us the best chance at solidifying the quarterback position for quite some time.

I'm just tired of waiting.

Your scenario is based on us signing Peyton and the move failing.

O.city
02-18-2012, 07:15 PM
I'm with ya Boss on the sick of the next year talk. But it is what it is.


IF you get Manning and he's healthy, you likely aren't in a spot to draft a qb without moving up.

But like Milk said, it's damn near getting to the point that the teams needing a quarterback are becoming slim aftre every draft.

milkman
02-18-2012, 07:32 PM
If Manning returns to form, we wouldn't be in a position to draft a dranchise guy for at least 2-3 years.

Drafting Tannehill gives us a situation that he is able to sit back and learn everything to do with the position for a couple years and for either he or Stanzi to be ready when Peyton hangs em up so that we don't have to waste some prime years of guys on their last legs.

All in all, I am and have been sick of the "let's wait till next year" talk.

If we arent gonna make a move to trade up this year, what makes you thin we would move from the mid to late 20s all the way up to a position to take a real franchise qb option next year?

It would still take multiple premium picks to do so, next year.

Signing Peyton and drafting Tannehill would give us the best chance at solidifying the quarterback position for quite some time.

I'm just tired of waiting.

Your scenario is based on us signing Peyton and the move failing.

My scenario accounts for either Manning playing at a high level, or failing.

In either case, there are going to be about 4 first round grade QBs in the next draft, and there are only going to be a couple of teams looking for a QB.

We can not compete with the Browns this year to move up.
We simply don't have the draft ammo they have to offer.

And the fact remains, QBs with the few number of starts that Tannehill has haven't yet succeeded.

Taking Tannehill at 11 or 12 isn't a smart pick.

He's late first, second round material that will be overdrafted.

I'm as sick as you, if not moreso, of waiting, since I've waited a hell of a lot longer, but the fact is, waiting this year is the smart play.

BossChief
02-18-2012, 07:48 PM
After all the years waiting, I guess I'm willing to take the bird in the hand and take Tannehill, but I've understood your stance since the first time you posted it a couple weeks ago.

If we are sitting at say, 25th in the draft...it would take quite a bit to move up to 10-15 to take a quarterback.

Also, if Peyton did work out (in terms of us winning a playoff game or 3 with him) that would likely mean the team would look to go the same route again the next time, too.

All in all, it's all a big waste of time anyway.

We aren't gonna sign Peyton and Cassel will be the starter for 2012 until he shows a level of suck so bad that they are forced to move on to Stanzi and at least I have that to look forward to.

Thig Lyfe
03-02-2012, 04:51 PM
Peyton Manning in traction is an improvement over Matt Cassel...sign em up...

NOT EVEN A JOKE