PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Peyton Manning: Go on record


DeezNutz
02-25-2012, 08:00 PM
Hypothetical:

Peyton Manning is available. The Chiefs will acquire him, but the organization will NOT be selecting a QB early in the draft while Manning is under contract. The goal will be to build around Manning, with the expectation that he has two, maybe three, good years left. Essentially, this will be the Montana experiment 2.0, minus draft compensation and with an ostensibly healthier* player.

Would you be supportive of these decisions?

(*All of the above assumes that Manning is healthy and ready to roll, save for age and general wear and tear.)

KC Tattoo
02-25-2012, 08:02 PM
NO to Peyton Manning. DRAFT A QUARTERBACK & have him compete against Stanzi. That is it. I hope it's a first rounder & trade up for RG3 if we can.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-25-2012, 08:02 PM
If he's at 100% abso-freakin-lutely!

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:03 PM
I could get behind bringing Manning in, but not at the exclusion of a high draft QB in the next couple of drafts.

MIAdragon
02-25-2012, 08:04 PM
Yes Id take the shot now.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-25-2012, 08:05 PM
I could get behind bringing Manning in, but not at the exclusion of a high draft QB in the next couple of drafts.

If were drafting last the next 2 years, not just yes but %*&#*&*(#@&*($# YES!

KurtCobain
02-25-2012, 08:05 PM
Stanzii sucks and there's nobody besides Luck in this draft that will turn into a every year contender type guy. We probably don't get one next year unless we lose alot. No to losing, yes to the OP.

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:07 PM
No. If he was a 25 year old Peyton then my answer would be a resounding YES. But a 37 year old Manning who is coming off of multiple neck surgeries, missed an entire season and is no guarantee to be even half the QB post injury that he was pre-injury is not worth it. Especially at the cost of abandoning a QBoTF in the draft.

DeezNutz
02-25-2012, 08:08 PM
I could get behind bringing Manning in, but not at the exclusion of a high draft QB in the next couple of drafts.

I honestly think it would be a repeat of the Montana situation, if it were to happen. First, I think the organization would develop tunnel vision in an effort to "win now." Second, I'm not sure if Manning would want any part of helping to develop a QB or even being asked about the situation. And anyone who thinks that Manning won't have a decent say in whatever situation he finds himself in is fooling himself.

BigMeatballDave
02-25-2012, 08:10 PM
I would like to draft a QB as well, but you know thats not happening.

Sign Peyton
Sign Saturday
Draft an RT and C
Tag Bowe
Say good bye to Carr(sadly)

Win SBs

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:10 PM
If were drafting last the next 2 years, not just yes but %*&#*&*(#@&*($# YES!

I've said this before, but with the number of teams that have or will have addressed the QB position in last year's draft and the upcoming draft, and with Flynn, there are only going to be a couple of teams in the market in the '13 draft for QBs.

We can win more games in '12 and still be in a better position to get after a first round QB then than we are now.

Fruit Ninja
02-25-2012, 08:11 PM
No. If he was a 25 year old Peyton then my answer would be a resounding YES. But a 37 year old Manning who is coming off of multiple neck surgeries, missed an entire season and is no guarantee to be even half the QB post injury that he was pre-injury is not worth it. Especially at the cost of abandoning a QBoTF in the draft.

He's not going to get a huge contract. Its going to be incentive based. IF he plays well he will get paid, if he doesnt, then he wont.

There is no downside imo of signing him if he's available. Im like everyone else, i would LOVE to draft a good young one, but we arent in a position to do that right now. Our only other options are Cassel and Orton. Im sorry, ill take my chances with Manning, fuck it.

BigMeatballDave
02-25-2012, 08:11 PM
No. If he was a 25 year old Peyton then my answer would be a resounding YES. But a 37 year old Manning who is coming off of multiple neck surgeries, missed an entire season and is no guarantee to be even half the QB post injury that he was pre-injury is not worth it. Especially at the cost of abandoning a QBoTF in the draft.

Do you really think Pioli is going draft a QBotF?

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:12 PM
I would like to draft a QB as well, but you know thats not happening.

Sign Peyton
Sign Saturday
Draft an RT and C
Tag Bowe
Say good bye to Carr(sadly)

Win SBs

A much younger, healthier Peyton won one SB on teams easily as talented as ours. What makes you think a 37 year old Peyton coming off multiple neck surgeries will win SB's with us?

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:12 PM
I honestly think it would be a repeat of the Montana situation, if it were to happen. First, I think the organization would develop tunnel vision in an effort to "win now." Second, I'm not sure if Manning would want any part of helping to develop a QB or even being asked about the situation. And anyone who thinks that Manning won't have a decent say in whatever situation he finds himself in is fooling himself.

If Manning can't understand a team looking to the future of the most important position on the field, then he can go fuck himself.

I don't care if he mentors.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:13 PM
A much younger, healthier Peyton won one SB on teams easily as talented as ours. What makes you think a 37 year old Peyton coming off multiple neck surgeries will win SB's with us?

Those teams lacked overall defensive talent.

Defense is still a crucial aspect of championship teams.

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:15 PM
I've said this before, but with the number of teams that have or will have addressed the QB position in last year's draft and the upcoming draft, and with Flynn, there are only going to be a couple of teams in the market in the '13 draft for QBs.

We can win more games in '12 and still be in a better position to get after a first round QB then than we are now.

Depends on who declares. Remember at the start of this season we were looking at a deep QB class. Hell, Tannehill was nowhere in the first round of anyone's mocks. Now he looks like a possible Top 10 pick. It is not because of his performance this year, but because of the lack of QBs outside of the first 2.

dirk digler
02-25-2012, 08:15 PM
Well duh. I can't believe anyone would vote no. If he is healthy he could play 5 years easily and that is 5 legit chances in being in the SB.

DeezNutz
02-25-2012, 08:17 PM
If Manning can't understand a team looking to the future of the most important position on the field, then he can go **** himself.

I don't care if he mentors.

Oh, I think a minimal effort will be made to look to the future, such as the drafting of Stanzi last year. No one, save Iowa fans, give two shits about a fifth-rounder, and thus it's a low risk and low impact move. In other words, reporters aren't demanding to know when Stanzi might see action.

Draft a kid at #11 overall, however, and some form of "When is the kid going to see time?" will be asked every week. And I don't think that Manning is going to put himself in a position where he's going to have to be a part of that distraction.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:17 PM
Well duh. I can't believe anyone would vote no. If he is healthy he could play 5 years easily and that is 5 legit chances in being in the SB.


5 years easily?

That's what was said about Joe Montana.

How many years did Joe play?

O.city
02-25-2012, 08:17 PM
Manning can "mentor" by just being himself. All I want a young early round pick qb to do is watch how he conducts himself.

Claynus
02-25-2012, 08:17 PM
If he is 80+ percent of his past self, sure.

Dave Lane
02-25-2012, 08:18 PM
I'm torn but I said yes in the end. Given a choice of Peyton or RG3 I'll take RG3

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:18 PM
Those teams lacked overall defensive talent.

Defense is still a crucial aspect of championship teams.

Some of those Colts teams had some defensive talent. Peyton failed his team as many times in the playoffs as his defense did. It was not like he was throwing 400+ yards with 4-5 TDs and still losing. He played great in the regular season, but has been notoriously bad in the playoffs. What bothers me is when Peyton gets credit for 12-4 and 13-3 regular seasons and his defense takes the blame for playoff failure.

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:18 PM
Do you really think Pioli is going draft a QBotF?

I can hope. If he brings in Manning, I can all but guarantee he won't.

MOhillbilly
02-25-2012, 08:18 PM
Well duh. I can't believe anyone would vote no. If he is healthy he could play 5 years easily and that is 5 legit chances in being in the SB.

He will go down like a wet noodle.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:19 PM
Oh, I think a minimal effort will be made to look to the future, such as the drafting of Stanzi last year. No one, save Iowa fans, give two shits about a fifth-rounder, and thus it's a low risk and low impact move. In other words, reporters aren't demanding to know when Stanzi might see action.

Draft a kid at #11 overall, however, and some form of "When is the kid going to see time?" will be asked every week. And I don't think that Manning is going to put himself in a position where he's going to have to be a part of that distraction.

I highly doubt that would be a major distraction for a team with Peyton Manning at QB.

DeezNutz
02-25-2012, 08:19 PM
Well duh. I can't believe anyone would vote no. If he is healthy he could play 5 years easily and that is 5 legit chances in being in the SB.

He'll be 36 at the end of March.

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:20 PM
He's not going to get a huge contract. Its going to be incentive based. IF he plays well he will get paid, if he doesnt, then he wont.

There is no downside imo of signing him if he's available. Im like everyone else, i would LOVE to draft a good young one, but we arent in a position to do that right now. Our only other options are Cassel and Orton. Im sorry, ill take my chances with Manning, **** it.

This team is very talented. We can address almost every major weakness in FA except QB. We need to go for broke and trade whatever it takes to get Luck or RGIII.

BoneKrusher
02-25-2012, 08:20 PM
Yep
if he's released its not like it's gonna cost us a draft pick.

Claynus
02-25-2012, 08:20 PM
Part of the reason the Montana thing didn't work out was because the team around him wasn't quite top tier.

The Bills were a better team than the Chiefs, and even with Montana, the Chargers and Broncos gave us a run for our money in the division.

We would fucking destroy the AFC West with an 80 percent Manning, and compete with the top teams in the AFC easily. I think we'd be in the running for the top seed just because of the state of the division.

DeezNutz
02-25-2012, 08:21 PM
I highly doubt that would be a major distraction for a team with Peyton Manning at QB.

He's a descending player; there's no question about that. What is in doubt is when he's going to reach the level where he begins drawing serious criticism.

And it's far easier to lob criticism if there's a viable alternative in the wings.

dirk digler
02-25-2012, 08:22 PM
5 years easily?

That's what was said about Joe Montana.

How many years did Joe play?

Manning hasn't taken anywhere close the punishment Joe did. If it wasn't for the neck problem he could play well past 40.

Bowser
02-25-2012, 08:22 PM
In this hypothetical, is fourth round considered "early"? Get Peyton and take Kellen Moore in the fourth?

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:23 PM
Some of those Colts teams had some defensive talent. Peyton failed his team as many times in the playoffs as his defense did. It was not like he was throwing 400+ yards with 4-5 TDs and still losing. He played great in the regular season, but has been notoriously bad in the playoffs. What bothers me is when Peyton gets credit for 12-4 and 13-3 regular seasons and his defense takes the blame for playoff failure.

Oh, no question Manning choked in the playoffs.

You're talking to the original "Manning is the most overrated QB ever, he chokes in the playoffs" guy here.

But the fact is, those defenses were built to play with a lead, and that failed them as much as Manning did in the playoffs.

If the Colts weren't falling behind in the playoffs, Manning might never have earned this deserved rep for choking.

It was a flawed team building concept.

Hoover
02-25-2012, 08:23 PM
Absolutely

1. We already have a 2nd year QB to develop in Stanzi. He has all the tools. Not every QB has to be a top draft pick.

2. We need solid backup for 2012. I would keep Cassel at $5 mil.

3. We can't draft a QB who would be more ready than Stanzi currently is and there are really no other FA options.

Our choice is rally Cassel or Manning. Easy choice

DeezNutz
02-25-2012, 08:23 PM
In this hypothetical, is fourth round considered "early"? Get Peyton and take Kellen Moore in the fourth?

Is Pennington unavailable?

DeezNutz
02-25-2012, 08:24 PM
Absolutely

1. We already have a 2nd year QB to develop in Stanzi. He has all the tools. Not every QB has to be a top draft pick.

2. We need solid backup for 2012. I would keep Cassel at $5 mil.

3. We can't draft a QB who would be more ready than Stanzi currently is and there are really no other FA options.

Our choice is rally Cassel or Manning. Easy choice

I hope that Stanzi is either our starter in '12 or is released.

O.city
02-25-2012, 08:25 PM
Agree. Stanzi eithers needs to start next year or be released.

BigMeatballDave
02-25-2012, 08:25 PM
I can hope. If he brings in Manning, I can all but guarantee he won't.

Well, thats the thing. Hes not.

So, bring on Peyton.

Bowser
02-25-2012, 08:25 PM
Is Pennington unavailable?

Chad? Am I missing something obvious here? I'll say yes he is, unless I'm missing the joke, then my answer is whatever is the best answer to make me not look like an idiot.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:25 PM
Manning hasn't taken anywhere close the punishment Joe did. If it wasn't for the neck problem he could play well past 40.

He's 37 years old.

Montana was 33.

You think Manning can play at a high level until he's 42?

2, 3 years max is what I'd guess.

But you may be right, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

Hoover
02-25-2012, 08:26 PM
I hope that Stanzi is either our starter in '12 or is released.

Why the disappointment in a first year player that didn't see the field?

Bowser
02-25-2012, 08:27 PM
And while we're on the subject -

Why would anybody think Stanzi has "all the tools"? I don't exactly remember him as a world beater at Iowa, and he really didn't do much of anything in the one measly preseason he's played in the NFL so far (he has that one really nice seam pass to the tight end, but other than that?). I guess I just don't get all the love for the guy.

Bump
02-25-2012, 08:28 PM
hell yeah! If we do that, we have just as good a shot as anybody to win the Superbowl, I think we'd be favorites. QB really is like the only missing piece, besides a couple of what should be easy to find, like RT, some depth and maybe another guard, that's it!

O.city
02-25-2012, 08:28 PM
This franchise is so qb starved that they are looking for anything. Stanzi showed a spec of something so there ya go.

Bowser
02-25-2012, 08:30 PM
This franchise is so qb starved that they are looking for anything. Stanzi showed a spec of something so there ya go.

Sad, isn't it?

wazu
02-25-2012, 08:31 PM
There's pretty much no move I will accept at the exclusion of drafting a QB if an opportunity emerges.

BigMeatballDave
02-25-2012, 08:31 PM
And while we're on the subject -

Why would anybody think Stanzi has "all the tools"? I don't exactly remember him as a world beater at Iowa, and he really didn't do much of anything in the one measly preseason he's played in the NFL so far (he has that one really nice seam pass to the tight end, but other than that?). I guess I just don't get all the love for the guy.

I dont get the Stanzi love either but Brady didnt show shit at Michigan.

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:32 PM
Well, thats the thing. Hes not.

So, bring on Peyton.

I want to believe you, but until after the draft I still have to hope he drafts one. I would rather some team like Cleveland or Wash or Miami go after him which might make it easier for us to trade up for RGIII.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:32 PM
And while we're on the subject -

Why would anybody think Stanzi has "all the tools"? I don't exactly remember him as a world beater at Iowa, and he really didn't do much of anything in the one measly preseason he's played in the NFL so far (he has that one really nice seam pass to the tight end, but other than that?). I guess I just don't get all the love for the guy.

I am not a Stanzi guy, nor an Iowa fan.

That being said, he threw 3 or 4 good passes, passes that Cassel can only dream about, in the preseason.


He also showed some real moxie on one play in which he was under major duress from defensive pressure.

He didn't get any opportunity to show much else.

Those were the positives I saw.

Hoover
02-25-2012, 08:32 PM
And while we're on the subject -

Why would anybody think Stanzi has "all the tools"? I don't exactly remember him as a world beater at Iowa, and he really didn't do much of anything in the one measly preseason he's played in the NFL so far (he has that one really nice seam pass to the tight end, but other than that?). I guess I just don't get all the love for the guy.

Having watched Stanzi play throughout his Iowa career I have always thought he would be a good pro QB. We would be stupid to not to try and develop him.

dirk digler
02-25-2012, 08:33 PM
He's 37 years old.

Montana was 33.

You think Manning can play at a high level until he's 42?

2, 3 years max is what I'd guess.

But you may be right, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

If he was 100% healthy? No question. He averaged 17 sacks/season and a lot of that was in his first few seasons.

bricks
02-25-2012, 08:38 PM
Yes. I would definately make the move regardless.

What are the chances that a QB of this caliber will be available on the FA market again?

When the opportunities strikes, you capitalize because you simply don't know when it'll happen again. Chiefs have the chance, might as well do it. The time and situation is perfect to get him. The team is well built all around(besides the QB position), he gives them pretty much the final piece to the puzzle. They already have an established core right now with a lot of the players approaching the prime of their careers.

What better way is there to address the biggest need on the team with a sure first ballot hall of famer and ultimate field general? He has the resume, the superior talent, skills and intelligence better than anyone out there. He improves the position instantly and by leaps and bounds.

Drafting a quarterback doesn't assure you anything. With Manning you know what you're getting. Ill take GOOD quality NFL experience anyday of the week over a rookie. Besides, would a rookie QB possess the intangibles of a QB like Manning? Highly unlikely.

Brock
02-25-2012, 08:39 PM
It isn't going to hurt anything. It isn't going to change their outlook on drafting a QB, because they weren't going to do that anyway. I'm not a fan of the overall philosophy, but if Manning can play like he has in the past, he makes this team kick ass for a few years anyway.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:41 PM
If he was 100% healthy? No question. He averaged 17 sacks/season and a lot of that was in his first few seasons.

He still gets hit, even if he's not sacked, and your body doesn't rebound from that in your late 30's and 40's the way it does in your 20's.

Give me the names of all the QBs that played into their 40s.

I'll give you the first one.

George Blanda, and he was just a back up.

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:43 PM
Yes. I would definately make the move regardless.

What are the chances that a QB of this caliber will be available on the FA market again?

When the opportunities strikes, you capitalize because you simply don't know when it'll happen again. Chiefs have the chance, might as well do it. The time and situation is perfect to get him. The team is well built all around(besides the QB position), he gives them pretty much the final piece to the puzzle. They already have an established core right now with a lot of the players approaching the prime of their careers.

What better way is there to address the biggest need on the team with a sure first ballot hall of famer and ultimate field general? He has the resume, the superior talent, skills and intelligence better than anyone out there. He improves the position instantly and by leaps and bounds.

Drafting a quarterback doesn't assure you anything. With Manning you know what you're getting. Ill take GOOD quality NFL experience anyday of the week over a rookie. Besides, would a rookie QB possess the intangibles of a QB like Manning? Highly unlikely.

Pre injury yes. Post injury ??????????????????? Everyone who wants him is assuming that we will automatically get the pre injury Manning. There is no guarantee he will ever be that again. Bringing him in most likely means we (yet again) will neglect the QB position in the first round.

OnTheWarpath58
02-25-2012, 08:43 PM
It isn't going to hurt anything. It isn't going to change their outlook on drafting a QB, because they weren't going to do that anyway. I'm not a fan of the overall philosophy, but if Manning can play like he has in the past, he makes this team kick ass for a few years anyway.

That's the key. We weren't going to be drafting legit QB's anyway, so why not.

As much as I hate the philosophy, it would at least give us decent play at the position until he retires and we draft the next late round shitstain to be our so-called franchise QB.

Brock
02-25-2012, 08:44 PM
Bringing him in most likely means we (yet again) will neglect the QB position in the first round.

Wake up. That wasn't going to happen anyway.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:46 PM
Wake up. That wasn't going to happen anyway.

Maybe I'm misreading it, but in this hypothetical, the reason we aren't drafting a QB is Peyton Manning.

If, hypothetically, that is the only reason, then, hypothetically, I don't want him.

dirk digler
02-25-2012, 08:49 PM
He still gets hit, even if he's not sacked, and your body doesn't rebound from that in your late 30's and 40's the way it does in your 20's.

Give me the names of all the QBs that played into their 40s.

I'll give you the first one.

George Blanda, and he was just a back up.

I don't know about that with Peyton. He had such a quick release teams had a hard time even touching him most of the time.

And yes I realize it is very rare for a NFL player to play into his 40's.

Brock
02-25-2012, 08:49 PM
Maybe I'm misreading it, but in this hypothetical, the reason we aren't drafting a QB is Peyton Manning.

If, hypothetically, that is the only reason, then, hypothetically, I don't want him.

The hypothetical changes nothing from the way it really is. It's the same as assuming you won't hit the powerball tomorrow.

tredadda
02-25-2012, 08:50 PM
Wake up. That wasn't going to happen anyway.

I am no fan of Pioli, but remember when we all believed he would not take Berry because he does not draft safeties with a Top 5 pick? He surprised us all, and might do it again. If he brings in Manning, it is all but guaranteed that he won't. He will be bringing in a quick fix at QB and will draft accordingly.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:52 PM
The hypothetical changes nothing from the way it really is. It's the same as assuming you won't hit the powerball tomorrow.

I understand that it doesn't change how this franchise works, but it's still a hypothetical situation, and in this hypothetical, the only reason the Chiefs aren't drafting a QB is Manning.

That's impacts how I respond to this question.

OnTheWarpath58
02-25-2012, 08:52 PM
Man, people really have poor memories when it comes to that Berry quote.

It's been getting a lot of play around here the past few days.

milkman
02-25-2012, 08:54 PM
Man, people really have poor memories when it comes to that Berry quote.

It's been getting a lot of play around here the past few days.

Yeah, no shit.

bricks
02-25-2012, 08:55 PM
Pre injury yes. Post injury ??????????????????? Everyone who wants him is assuming that we will automatically get the pre injury Manning. There is no guarantee he will ever be that again. Bringing him in most likely means we (yet again) will neglect the QB position in the first round.

It's all about risk vs reward.

There are some positive reports going on about him.

Doctors have stated that he is medically cleared to play. And some reports are suggesting he is making improvements throwing the football.

I trust the doctors, and I have faith he will improve and bounce back. Will he be the same? Only time will tell.

O.city
02-25-2012, 08:57 PM
Manning is a Clark Hunt dream. The parking lots would be full of tailgaters, stadium full everygame. That place would be rocking.


If he is 100 percent, sign him. Give yourself a 2 or 3 year window. But, you have to, absolutely have to, be searching for the guy to be next when that Manning train is done.

BoneKrusher
02-25-2012, 08:58 PM
It's all about risk vs reward.

There are some positive reports going on about him.

Doctors have stated that he is medically cleared to play. And some reports are suggesting he is making improvements throwing the football.

I trust the doctors, and I have faith he will improve and bounce back. Will he be the same? Only time will tell.

yep, as starved as we are for a Decent QB it's well worth the risk IMO.

ChiefFripp
02-25-2012, 09:04 PM
See this is what I don't understand; The Chiefs have not been to a superbowl in my lifetime , however people would rather develope a QB for later rather than take a chance on a guy who could possibly win a SB for us in the next year or two. Not to mention, if The Chiefs turn in to a great team, a good QB would be more likely to come here to develope under Manning before Peyton retires.

DeezNutz
02-25-2012, 09:08 PM
Chad? Am I missing something obvious here? I'll say yes he is, unless I'm missing the joke, then my answer is whatever is the best answer to make me not look like an idiot.

Nah, just messing. I don't think the arm strength is there to make Moore a viable NFL QB.

Why the disappointment in a first year player that didn't see the field?

No disappointment at all. It just seems like some of the expectations for this kid are, well, advanced.

FAX
02-25-2012, 09:09 PM
It's an interesting premise, Mr. DeezNutz.

If the assumption is that Manning is 100% healthy and can make the throws and doesn't relapse and can actually play at a high level for 3 years, I'd say, "Yep".

That's a lot of assumingisms, though. Even if his muscle and nerve atrophy and prior damage can somehow be reversed and he can work his way back to pro-bowl form, he's one hit away from bowling with his own head.

FAX

FAX
02-25-2012, 09:12 PM
See this is what I don't understand; The Chiefs have not been to a superbowl in my lifetime , however people would rather develope a QB for later rather than take a chance on a guy who could possibly win a SB for us in the next year or two. Not to mention, if The Chiefs turn in to a great team, a good QB would be more likely come here to develope under Manning before he retires.

Not to mention the positive effect that actually winning playoff games and/or the Super Bowl would have on our other players. That could be invaluable experience gained while establishing an entirely new attitude and internal expectations throughout the franchise.

FAX

KC Tattoo
02-25-2012, 09:15 PM
Hypothetically we get Peyton Manning and since there is no garantee of him winning us a Super Bowl. Just say he wins us a playoff game much like Joe Montana did but the next year we fall short again, well ya know what FUCK YOU all for wanting to bring him here TRUE FANS FUCK YOU.

Draft a kid and stick it out the season, draft another top teir QB in next years draft if we feel he would be top notch. Get over retreads my God allready, when is enough, enough?

aturnis
02-25-2012, 09:21 PM
Yes to Peyton Manning, no to not drafting a quarterback. Unless of course they think as highly of Stanzi as I do. Even if you think Stanzi is your QBOTF, you still select a QB high. Too many talented QB's is a fantastic problem to have.

Chocolate Hog
02-25-2012, 09:23 PM
Yes it's the only way the Chiefs possibly make the super bowl the next few years. Cassel, Orton, Campbell, Henne and Tannehill aren't going to do it.

milkman
02-25-2012, 09:40 PM
See this is what I don't understand; The Chiefs have not been to a superbowl in my lifetime , however people would rather develope a QB for later rather than take a chance on a guy who could possibly win a SB for us in the next year or two. Not to mention, if The Chiefs turn in to a great team, a good QB would be more likely to come here to develope under Manning before Peyton retires.

The reality is, this team went out and traded for Joe Montana at a time when the team was just begining it's ascension as a potential SB competitor.

Montana opened that window of opportunity for 2 years, if we assume that both years he was here were relevant.

This team has not had an open window since.

You get a young QB to grow with the rest of your team, and you leave that window open for 10 years or more.

Trading for Montana and failing to prepare for the future without him was shortsighted, at best.

To do the same with Manning would be stupidity.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Nightfyre
02-25-2012, 09:45 PM
The reality is, this team went out and traded for Joe Montana at a time when the team was just begining it's ascension as a potential SB competitor.

Montana opened that window of opportunity for 2 years, if we assume that both years he was here were relevant.

This team has not had an open window since.

You get a young QB to grow with the rest of your team, and you leave that window open for 10 years or more.

Trading for Montana and failing to prepare for the future without him was shortsighted, at best.

To do the same with Manning would be stupidity.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

This.

TEX
02-25-2012, 09:47 PM
The reality is, this team went out and traded for Joe Montana at a time when the team was just begining it's ascension as a potential SB competitor.

Montana opened that window of opportunity for 2 years, if we assume that both years he was here were relevant.

This team has not had an open window since.

You get a young QB to grow with the rest of your team, and you leave that window open for 10 years or more.

Trading for Montana and failing to prepare for the future without him was shortsighted, at best.

To do the same with Manning would be stupidity.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

...Um the year after he left, the Chiefs went 13-3 and did it again a couple of years after that. Marty, much more than not "properly preparing for the future without Montana" closed said window.

BigMeatballDave
02-25-2012, 09:49 PM
Hypothetically we get Peyton Manning and since there is no garantee of him winning us a Super Bowl. Just say he wins us a playoff game much like Joe Montana did but the next year we fall short again, well ya know what FUCK YOU all for wanting to bring him here TRUE FANS FUCK YOU.

Draft a kid and stick it out the season, draft another top teir QB in next years draft if we feel he would be top notch. Get over retreads my God allready, when is enough, enough?

You are missing the point here.

Most of us would love to draft a QB to develop.

This isnt likely to happen under Pioli.

Peyton is the next best thing.

milkman
02-25-2012, 09:51 PM
...Um the year after he left, the Chiefs went 13-3 and did it again a couple of years after that. Marty, much more than not "properly preparing for the future without Montana" closed said window.

I told my wife when Montana retired and Bono was the starter that that team might win some games and get to the playoffs, but they had no chance in hell of going to the SB.

I don't give a rat's ass about winning a lot of games in the regular season, without a legitimate QB, that window was effectively shut with Montana's retirement.

Chocolate Hog
02-25-2012, 09:56 PM
Peter King‏@SI_PeterKingReply
Retweet

RT @ChiefsandOsFan: Can you see manning in KC? ... Doubt it sincerely.

Yeah the ones doubting it are the same dumbasses who think Matt Cassel is a franchise QB. If the competition is Miami, Washington, and Arizona there's no reason why we shouldn't get him.

Chocolate Hog
02-25-2012, 09:57 PM
I told my wife when Montana retired and Bono was the starter that that team might win some games and get to the playoffs, but they had no chance in hell of going to the SB.

I don't give a rat's ass about winning a lot of games in the regular season, without a legitimate QB, that window was effectively shut with Montana's retirement.

I don't believe you said that. Get her on here or you're lying.

BossChief
02-25-2012, 09:57 PM
This is a legit superbowl contender with a fully healthy Peyton Manning and if we wait two years, that might change.

Also, I have faith in Stanzi.

milkman
02-25-2012, 09:59 PM
I don't believe you said that. Get her on here or you're lying.

Quite frankly, I don't care if some dumbass on the internet believes me.

Predarat
02-25-2012, 09:59 PM
Easy yes.
Manning
2 of Orton/Stanzi/Castle

Chocolate Hog
02-25-2012, 10:04 PM
Quite frankly, I don't care if some dumbass on the internet believes me.

Change your sarcasm meter old man.

milkman
02-25-2012, 10:04 PM
This is a legit superbowl contender with a fully healthy Peyton Manning and if we wait two years, that might change.

Also, I have faith in Stanzi.

I think I'm having a deja vu moment.

Chocolate Hog
02-25-2012, 10:04 PM
This is a legit superbowl contender with a fully healthy Peyton Manning and if we wait two years, that might change.

Also, I have faith in Stanzi.

Yet the national media pundits don't see us getting Manning LMAO

milkman
02-25-2012, 10:06 PM
Change your sarcasm meter old man.

Shut up, boy.

That meter has worked just fine for about 50 years.

KurtCobain
02-25-2012, 10:10 PM
I would let Milkman publicly teabag me for a superbowl win.
Posted via Mobile Device

BossChief
02-25-2012, 10:35 PM
He's 37 years old.

Montana was 33.

You think Manning can play at a high level until he's 42?

2, 3 years max is what I'd guess.

But you may be right, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.Montana was 37 when we traded a first round pick for him.

He still gets hit, even if he's not sacked, and your body doesn't rebound from that in your late 30's and 40's the way it does in your 20's.

Give me the names of all the QBs that played into their 40s.

I'll give you the first one.

George Blanda, and he was just a back up.
didn't Brad Johnson play till he was around that age?

He broke his neck, too and I think that was before he won the SB with Tampa.

milkman
02-25-2012, 10:42 PM
Montana was 37 when we traded a first round pick for him.


didn't Brad Johnson play till he was around that age?

He broke his neck, too and I think that was before he won the SB with Tampa.

You're right about Montana's age.

And Brad Johnson was in the league until he was 40, but only played in three games in his last two seasons.

Vinny Testaverde was in the league until the age of 44, but was not very good, relatively speaking, in his last 4 or 5 years, and spent most of that time as a backup.

BossChief
02-25-2012, 10:55 PM
Brad Johnson broke his neck in 1997 and won the superbowl in 2003 (the 2002 season)

KC Tattoo
02-25-2012, 11:01 PM
You are missing the point here.

Most of us would love to draft a QB to develop.

This isnt likely to happen under Pioli.

Peyton is the next best thing.

I don't really care what the point is. We should not settle as you say "next best thing" **** that shit. This fanbase is full of "true fans" that accept other teams trash as there savior, there were plenty here who thought Cassel would be adiquit just wanted to give him a chance as if Pioli knew what he was doing and what not.

I know most on this message bord would love to draft a QB & reallity Pioli most likely wont do it with our first. I just sickens me to death that this is part of what this fanbase accepts and still be happy as if Manning is still that good after neck surgery I may add. Regardless of his neck I don't want him he is reject that is hanging on to the end of his glorious career. One Super Bowl win on his resume that's it tho. He is old and used goods. I don't want Manning here and on record for that. By grace of God he wins us a Super Bowl then I will love him, but fail of that goal is EPIC FAIL & we will be right back where we are now wondering wtf we are going to do for a quarterback and another year or two down the drain of watch honest growth and development of not only the QB but the team that plays with him. We can get 10 years of opportunity to win championships but we will throw that away for a slim chance that he makes it through a season or two to win one. I'm not on bord with that, & it upsets me to have the notion of him or any other non draft pick we select to be our starting QB. It's redundantly retarded to bring Peyton Manning here even tho he was great in Indy good for him.

KCtotheSB
02-25-2012, 11:27 PM
Yes to Peyton.

The main weak point on this team is quarterback and if you're of the mindset that the rest of this team is Super Bowl caliber, then you go after Peyton Manning. The defense was awesome last season and I assume (lol assume) that the momentum will carry into this season with Romeo still on board. You get that extra oomph of offense with a healthy Peyton Manning that can put you up on that next plateau.

I would say a resounding "no" if we had to TRADE for Peyton, but that isn't the case in this scenario. In order to possibly receive solid QB play for a few years, you give up nothing but the bazillion dollars worth of cap room Clark left in his sock drawer. If Peyton flounders, you still have the assets in draft picks and players to possibly make a move in the next upcoming Drafts to pick up a young QB. And (while most everyone is sick of hearing about it), you still have Stanzi who has shown "flashes".

Absolutely you go out in free agency to recruit Peyton Manning in order to give yourselves a shot at a Lombardi Trophy now.

cdcox
02-25-2012, 11:35 PM
I think (a healthy) Manning gives the best chance of winning a SB while the present core is in its prime. If we were to draft a QB and groom him, by the time he was ready to lead a major push, players like Hali, DJ and Charles are going to be done, or running on fumes. Bowe, Dorsey, and Albert will have a prime year or two left.

On the other hand, WTF are we ever going to draft and develop our own QB so that we can have a shot at having a dynasty?

If we get a healthy Peyton, I'll give it a 7.

BossChief
02-25-2012, 11:42 PM
Also, having a healthy Manning means players like Bowe and Albert will not ever want to leave.

Other free agents would be calling us to play here.

We would get some really good primetime games and MNF games.

The stadium would be packed again and it would give us that much more homefield advantage.

Seriously, if his arm is strong enough to throw the whole route tree, sign him if you can.

cdcox
02-25-2012, 11:44 PM
Why this isn't Montana, part 2.

We have much better weapons on offense than we did with Montana. Manning could be a stronger multiplier for this offense than Montana was for the '90's offense. Other than QB, our weakness now is on OL, and Manning has the ability to neutralize weakness. With Manning, I'd rather be weak at OL than WR.

The defense in the '90s was a little better than our defense now, but defenses are less important now than they were then.

We'd have a legitimate shot for a SB with Manning.

Bowser
02-25-2012, 11:44 PM
Also, having a healthy Manning means players like Bowe and Albert will not ever want to leave.

Other free agents would be calling us to play here.

We would get some really good primetime games and MNF games.

The stadium would be packed again and it would give us that much more homefield advantage.

Seriously, if his arm is strong enough to throw the whole route tree, sign him if you can.

Preaching to the choir.

Rain Man
02-25-2012, 11:59 PM
I'd love to see Manning come in to compete for the starting job against Cassel and Palko.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 12:00 AM
Sign Peyton and draft Richardson and a few linemen/sign some depth and let's win some playoff games and be able to enjoy football again and have genuine hope.

I'm so tired of knowing our team doesn't have a chance in hell...

BigMeatballDave
02-26-2012, 12:12 AM
I don't really care what the point is. We should not settle as you say "next best thing" **** that shit. This fanbase is full of "true fans" that accept other teams trash as there savior, there were plenty here who thought Cassel would be adiquit just wanted to give him a chance as if Pioli knew what he was doing and what not.

I know most on this message bord would love to draft a QB & reallity Pioli most likely wont do it with our first. I just sickens me to death that this is part of what this fanbase accepts and still be happy as if Manning is still that good after neck surgery I may add. Regardless of his neck I don't want him he is reject that is hanging on to the end of his glorious career. One Super Bowl win on his resume that's it tho. He is old and used goods. I don't want Manning here and on record for that. By grace of God he wins us a Super Bowl then I will love him, but fail of that goal is EPIC FAIL & we will be right back where we are now wondering wtf we are going to do for a quarterback and another year or two down the drain of watch honest growth and development of not only the QB but the team that plays with him. We can get 10 years of opportunity to win championships but we will throw that away for a slim chance that he makes it through a season or two to win one. I'm not on bord with that, & it upsets me to have the notion of him or any other non draft pick we select to be our starting QB. It's redundantly retarded to bring Peyton Manning here even tho he was great in Indy good for him.

LOL Yep. Still missing the point.

You are preaching to the choir, dude

Sure-Oz
02-26-2012, 12:27 AM
If Peyton is healthy to play for 3 more years, trade up and get Richardson. Offense could be sick

BigMeatballDave
02-26-2012, 12:35 AM
If Peyton is healthy to play for 3 more years, trade up and get Richardson. Offense could be sick

No way.

If hes there at 11, sure.

lostcause
02-26-2012, 01:53 AM
Montana was the last qb to take the Chiefs to an AFC championship game, why is anyone dismissing him? If Manning could do at least that, it would be a revival of epic proportions.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 02:39 AM
You're right about Montana's age.

And Brad Johnson was in the league until he was 40, but only played in three games in his last two seasons.

Vinny Testaverde was in the league until the age of 44, but was not very good, relatively speaking, in his last 4 or 5 years, and spent most of that time as a backup.

Peyton is only 35 years old right now and turns 36 in a month.

Brett Favre had his best year in the NFL at 40 years old and played at 41.

Brad Johnson broke his neck and played For 11 years after that and won a superbowl in that span.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think he could play another 3-4 years...maybe even 5 if he us able to stay healthy.

We would be a contender till he hung em up with the amount of talent we have that is so young.

Brandon Carr and Tony Gonzalez would both be like "damnitt"

BossChief
02-26-2012, 02:47 AM
If Peyton is healthy to play for 3 more years, trade up and get Richardson. Offense could be sick

Depending on the cost, I'd be ok with that.

It would be a win now move, but with Peyton we would want a guy like him if we could get him.

Clark could have a scrooge mcduck sized tower of gold to swim in because season tickets, the luxury boxes and jersey sales would all be through the roof...same goes for the local tv contracts and other sources of money that would be more than enough to cover the cost of the contract.

Also, figure in that we could cut/trade Cassel to take 5million off the top of the contract and BOOM it's almost a complete no brainer to sign him if we can...even if we have to overspend a little to do so.

milkman
02-26-2012, 04:33 AM
Peyton is only 35 years old right now and turns 36 in a month.

Brett Favre had his best year in the NFL at 40 years old and played at 41.

Brad Johnson broke his neck and played For 11 years after that and won a superbowl in that span.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think he could play another 3-4 years...maybe even 5 if he us able to stay healthy.

We would be a contender till he hung em up with the amount of talent we have that is so young.

Brandon Carr and Tony Gonzalez would both be like "damnitt"

First, I don't believe that Manning will give you more than 3 years of play at a high level, because he is aging and is beginning to break down physically.

I garnt that I could be wrong.

But, again, in this hypothetical, when he's done, you are back to exactly where we started when he hangs 'em up.

If he fails to deliver a SB in that 3 (to 5 year) window, then you've wasted the prime years of the players mentioned, and you don't have a replacement ready.

Remember, I'm answering based on the hypothetical.

If the hypothetical situation is different, then I'm on board with Manning.

But if you are not selecting a high round QB specifically because of Manning, as this hypothetical presents, then no, I am not on board.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 04:57 AM
Even if we didn't draft a guy, we would at least be a ready to go superbowl the with a 3 year window at minimum in this scenario.

I'll take that.

If we wait till next year to draft a quarterback...do the math and that at least 3 years before that guy would be ready to get us to anywhere near that level.

That is being generous...it's mote likely to be 4 or 5 years till that happens.

That means you just wasted the great level of talent we presently have because 4 years from now our core group has past it's prime.

Getting Peyton now gives us a legit championship window with an elite, fully developed franchise quarterback and a boatload of talent just entering their prime to help him win games.

We would have a legit top five team on both sides of the ball in that scenario.

Fuck waiting...we are ready to make a run NOW.

I thought you, of all people, would be ready to put that final piece of this championship puzzle in place and re-live those memories of the 60s but maybe even better.

If we drafted Trent Richardson and had solid picks the rest of the way in the draft, all three of our guys return healthy and we sign Zpeyton...wouldnt that be the best team we've EVER had ON PAPER?

milkman
02-26-2012, 05:03 AM
Even if we didn't draft a guy, we would at least be a ready to go superbowl the with a 3 year window at minimum in this scenario.

I'll take that.

If we wait till next year to draft a quarterback...do the math and that at least 3 years before that guy would be ready to get us to anywhere near that level.

That is being generous...it's mote likely to be 4 or 5 years till that happens.

That means you just wasted the great level of talent we presently have because 4 years from now our core group has past it's prime.

Getting Peyton now gives us a legit championship window with an elite, fully developed franchise quarterback and a boatload of talent just entering their prime to help him win games.

We would have a legit top five team on both sides of the ball in that scenario.

**** waiting...we are ready to make a run NOW.

I thought you, of all people, would be ready to put that final piece of this championship puzzle in place and re-live those memories of the 60s but maybe even better.

If we drafted Trent Richardson and had solid picks the rest of the way in the draft, all three of our guys return healthy and we sign Zpeyton...wouldnt that be the best team we've EVER had ON PAPER?

I went through the 90s with Marty and Montana.

Bringing in an all time great on his legs is no guarantee that you'll win a SB, and when the QB is gone, if you don't have a the next guy in place then you are setting yourself up for years of disappointment and failure.

I want a stopgap that can maximize this team's current potential, but not at the cost of the future, because I may not have another 15 years to wait for another window.

scho63
02-26-2012, 05:07 AM
If he was early 30's I would vote yes, but 36 with 4 neck surgeries???? No way

BossChief
02-26-2012, 05:16 AM
We usually agree and see eye to eye, not this time.

Ill take the bird on the hand RIGHT NOW, please.

Montana was a year older and cost us a first round pick...he also suffered through a lot of injuries through his career and Peyton hasn't and he wouldn't cost us a draft pick.

Give Peyton this defense that is really coming into it's own and the weapons he would have on offense...fuck it, I'd even go as far as to buy season tickets again if we signed him.

Football would be fun again.

Also, Pioli has shown that the patriot way is to trade back as much as you can when you have a franchise quarterback.

Sign him and trade back every year so that when the time comes where you need to make a move to replace him, you can do so without hurting yourself in the process.

There isn't a scenario that you can sell me into where I wouldn't sign a healthy Peyton Manning.

milkman
02-26-2012, 05:28 AM
We usually agree and see eye to eye, not this time.

Ill take the bird on the hand RIGHT NOW, please.

Montana was a year older and cost us a first round pick...he also suffered through a lot of injuries through his career and Peyton hasn't and he wouldn't cost us a draft pick.

Give Peyton this defense that is really coming into it's own and the weapons he would have on offense...**** it, I'd even go as far as to buy season tickets again if we signed him.

Football would be fun again.

Also, Pioli has shown that the patriot way is to trade back as much as you can when you have a franchise quarterback.

Sign him and trade back every year so that when the time comes where you need to make a move to replace him, you can do so without hurting yourself in the process.

There isn't a scenario that you can sell me into where I wouldn't sign a healthy Peyton Manning.

In three years, some of these teams that have addressed the QB position this year, or last year, will likely be back in the market ffor QB, while other team's that have the position locked up with veterans will be looking for repalcements for those guys that are retiring.

We could well find ourselves in no better position to address the position then than we are now.

The best time for this team to address the position is very likely going to be in next year's draft, but because we aren't, in this hypothetical, drafting a QB until Manning retires, we will have missed our best opportunity.

GloryDayz
02-26-2012, 06:51 AM
I'd like to see him change the culture in the locker room..

Pasta Giant Meatball
02-26-2012, 07:18 AM
A much younger, healthier Peyton won one SB on teams easily as talented as ours. What makes you think a 37 year old Peyton coming off multiple neck surgeries will win SB's with us?

Those Colts teams didn't have near the talent on D the Chiefs do. Not even close. They were bottom of the barrel year after year.

Pasta Giant Meatball
02-26-2012, 07:20 AM
Some of those Colts teams had some defensive talent. Peyton failed his team as many times in the playoffs as his defense did. It was not like he was throwing 400+ yards with 4-5 TDs and still losing. He played great in the regular season, but has been notoriously bad in the playoffs. What bothers me is when Peyton gets credit for 12-4 and 13-3 regular seasons and his defense takes the blame for playoff failure.

:spock: Did you not watch the Colts last season at all? Manning was that team.

keg in kc
02-26-2012, 07:24 AM
Since I don't believe they'll be willing to go for a QB early in the draft regardless of whether Manning's under contract or not, I would be in favor of acquiring him, if healthy.

However, they really need to get the next guy in place now (or 3 years ago). Because drafting a QB in 2012 is really a move for 2014 or 2015 and then the decade after that.

bevischief
02-26-2012, 07:45 AM
Only with they draft the qbotf next year this year me are screwed.

Old Dog
02-26-2012, 07:51 AM
If it wasn't for the neck problem he could play well past 40.

If it wasn't for the neck problem the Colts wouldn't be drafting #1 or if you prefer, If it weren't for Booth, Mrs Lincoln would have enjoyed date night

That said, I say get the guy if it's not gonna cost an arm and a leg.

prhom
02-26-2012, 08:14 AM
I'd love to see Manning come in to compete for the starting job against Cassel and Palko.

The great part is that Manning only needs to be at about 50% of what he was in order to win the starting job.

Marco Polo
02-26-2012, 08:31 AM
I voted yes because I don't think they'd draft a quarterback early anyway.
Posted via Mobile Device

DenverDanChiefsFan
02-26-2012, 08:38 AM
NFL ‏ @nfl Reply Retweet Favorite Open
Romeo Crennel says Chiefs would be crazy not to consider signing Peyton Manning: bit.ly/x9ptJh

Mr_Tomahawk
02-26-2012, 08:39 AM
NFL ‏ @nfl Reply Retweet Favorite Open
Romeo Crennel says Chiefs would be crazy not to consider signing Peyton Manning: bit.ly/x9ptJh

Brand New Information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1!

Direckshun
02-26-2012, 08:48 AM
I'm on record.

BoneKrusher
02-26-2012, 08:51 AM
I'm on record.

Likewise.
and if we cant get Manning i'm on record for resigning Orton.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-26-2012, 08:52 AM
Likewise.
and if we cant get Manning i'm on record for resigning Orton.

Orton won't sign here if we get Manning.

DeezNutz
02-26-2012, 08:53 AM
Ultimately, I guess I'm going to have to say "yes." I put the condition about the Chiefs not drafting a QB simply to prevent a million comments to this effect. However, like many others, I don't believe this will change, Manning be damned.

Bottom line, if we're not drafting a QB anyway, why not open up a very legitimate SB window?

CoMoChief
02-26-2012, 09:35 AM
I've accepted the fact that this team will not draft a first rd QB.

SO.....since they won't, why not bring in one of the best QB's to play the game? (assuming he's healthy and ready to go). You sign him and give him the tools that would help him be successful like a good Oline and a strong running game, I believe we have good receiving options for him as it is assuming we can resign Bowe.

Draft Trent Richardson in the 1st rd if he's there. Deadliest 1-2 punch in all of the NFL backfields. Part of the problem last year with the Chiefs not being able to score points is that they couldn't run the ball. need to have a backup plan if Charles can't come back to his old self, and remember in 2010 when we went to the playoffs and won the AFCW? We did that by running the ball down everyone's throat. Trent Richardson >>> Thomas Jones

Draft Oline in rd 2 and 3 (granted since Manning is getting old and just getting back from neck surgery he will need to be protected. We have no depth there anyways so after Manning leaves we should still have a good Oline in place for the next guy.

Sign NT Paul Soliai and either G Ben Grubbs or Carl Nicks.

bricks
02-26-2012, 09:53 AM
Ultimately, I guess I'm going to have to say "yes." I put the condition about the Chiefs not drafting a QB simply to prevent a million comments to this effect. However, like many others, I don't believe this will change, Manning be damned.

Bottom line, if we're not drafting a QB anyway, why not open up a very legitimate SB window?

And so they should open that window to making themselves a SB contender by signing Manning.

It makes perfect sense. Its not like the team is in rebuilding mode. That stage is past. Unfortunately, the development of a young QB didn't ride along in that journey.

If they were rebuilding, then I could understand the logic behind drafting a QB.

The team needs instant improvement at the QB position if they want to win now. Im not sure if that happens with a young QB. Im more confident that that will happen by adding Manning.

Manning suits their current situation and is complimentary to a lot of the players on this team that are in the prime of their careers.

*I think its more important to evaluate the teams current situation and see where they stand, and go by what works best rather than just pondering the thought of drafting a quarterback.

BoneKrusher
02-26-2012, 09:54 AM
Orton won't sign here if we get Manning.

i know that's why i said if we cant get Manning i want Orton, and fuck Castle.

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 10:02 AM
No. If he was a 25 year old Peyton then my answer would be a resounding YES. But a 37 year old Manning who is coming off of multiple neck surgeries, missed an entire season and is no guarantee to be even half the QB post injury that he was pre-injury is not worth it. Especially at the cost of abandoning a QBoTF in the draft.

Hes not 37 nore will he be 37 in the upcoming season http://www.colts.com/team/roster/Peyton-Manning/e0a02c1e-c1ec-4c1a-a934-f827fe8fc619

BigMeatballDave
02-26-2012, 10:08 AM
NFL ‏ @nfl Reply Retweet Favorite Open
Romeo Crennel says Chiefs would be crazy not to consider signing Peyton Manning: bit.ly/x9ptJh

LOL you are a day or so late on this one.

keg in kc
02-26-2012, 10:09 AM
i know that's why i said if we cant get Manning i want Orton, and **** Castle.I agree with that. I think Orton's probably the next best vet option. And I would be at least mildy surprised if he didn't take the job from Cassel if he re-signed.

Wallcrawler
02-26-2012, 10:12 AM
The Chiefs are not drafting a QB, so the whole poll topic is flawed.

We wont be giving up a shot at drafting a QB if we bring in Peyton, as whether we bring in Peyton or not, the Chiefs will not be drafting a QB.

Pablo
02-26-2012, 10:14 AM
I voted no.

I'd be excited as hell to see real QB play from Peyton for a couple of seasons; but it just depresses me to think we're never going to build a legit franchise with a good, young QB.

Sigh...

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 10:15 AM
Rain man, Palkos a fa he won`t be here.

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 10:17 AM
I agree with that. I think Orton's probably the next best vet option. And I would be at least mildy surprised if he didn't take the job from Cassel if he re-signed.

Hell a bum off the street would take cassels job

tredadda
02-26-2012, 10:18 AM
I don't really care what the point is. We should not settle as you say "next best thing" **** that shit. This fanbase is full of "true fans" that accept other teams trash as there savior, there were plenty here who thought Cassel would be adiquit just wanted to give him a chance as if Pioli knew what he was doing and what not.

I know most on this message bord would love to draft a QB & reallity Pioli most likely wont do it with our first. I just sickens me to death that this is part of what this fanbase accepts and still be happy as if Manning is still that good after neck surgery I may add. Regardless of his neck I don't want him he is reject that is hanging on to the end of his glorious career. One Super Bowl win on his resume that's it tho. He is old and used goods. I don't want Manning here and on record for that. By grace of God he wins us a Super Bowl then I will love him, but fail of that goal is EPIC FAIL & we will be right back where we are now wondering wtf we are going to do for a quarterback and another year or two down the drain of watch honest growth and development of not only the QB but the team that plays with him. We can get 10 years of opportunity to win championships but we will throw that away for a slim chance that he makes it through a season or two to win one. I'm not on bord with that, & it upsets me to have the notion of him or any other non draft pick we select to be our starting QB. It's redundantly retarded to bring Peyton Manning here even tho he was great in Indy good for him.


^ This x1000.

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 10:21 AM
I voted no.

I'd be excited as hell to see real QB play from Peyton for a couple of seasons; but it just depresses me to think we're never going to build a legit franchise with a good, young QB.

Sigh...

You don`t know Stanzi can`t be that.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 10:23 AM
I think (a healthy) Manning gives the best chance of winning a SB while the present core is in its prime. If we were to draft a QB and groom him, by the time he was ready to lead a major push, players like Hali, DJ and Charles are going to be done, or running on fumes. Bowe, Dorsey, and Albert will have a prime year or two left.

On the other hand, WTF are we ever going to draft and develop our own QB so that we can have a shot at having a dynasty?

If we get a healthy Peyton, I'll give it a 7.

That's the biggest load of crap I have heard in a while. This is a QB driven league, and the percentages of rookie QBs coming in and doing well continues to increase. The problem is this team wants to be cheap when it comes to QBs and hope to win with over the hill veterans, career back ups and late round QBs. If we were to actually try to get a QB in the first round, we might be surprised how fast he develops and transforms this team into a perpetual winner.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 10:31 AM
Hes not 37 nore will he be 37 in the upcoming season http://www.colts.com/team/roster/Peyton-Manning/e0a02c1e-c1ec-4c1a-a934-f827fe8fc619

My bad 36 1/2. It still doesn't change the essence of my post.

bricks
02-26-2012, 10:36 AM
I voted no.

I'd be excited as hell to see real QB play from Peyton for a couple of seasons; but it just depresses me to think we're never going to build a legit franchise with a good, young QB.

Sigh...

I hear ya.

It would be nice to see that. And since a lot of us have come to the conclusion that thats not going to happen anytime soon, may as well just go for whats best. If its Peyton Manning, its Peyton Manning.

I just want to see this team win a chamionship before I die. To me, it doesn't matter how they do it. Just think, if they signed Manning and he was the difference in them winning it all, then that cures a lot of things. I've accepted that the franchise is sh*t as it is, so hoping for longevity/success by drafting a good young QB, or just hoping for longterm success period, is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Winning at least just one championship w/ the addition of a veteran QB makes up for all the terrible seasons of the past, and it relieves all the anxiety in hoping to draft a young QB to build the team properly for the future.

*I mean, if they didn't draft a young QB for the future, at least I could say, "well, I saw them win a championship in my lifetime." Im focusing on it from that perspective. Thats just me anyway.

BigMeatballDave
02-26-2012, 10:37 AM
My bad 36 1/2. It still doesn't change the essence of my post.

Kinda, because 1 yr can make a difference on an aging QB.

Just saying...

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 11:05 AM
Kinda, because 1 yr can make a difference on an aging QB.

Just saying...

I agree

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 11:06 AM
Besides all this age bs talk is really stupid. Tell that to Farve.

whoman69
02-26-2012, 11:21 AM
Dumb premise. If you get Peyton, it increases the chance you take a young QB. Its not like we need to add a lot of parts around Manning. We can afford to trade picks next year to move up.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 11:23 AM
We have the pass rush and secondary to be a dominant defense and the receivers and backs (if we draft Trent Richardson) to be a dominant offense with a guy like Peyton at qb.

We were in a lot of low scoring games last year and flashed a very impressive pass rush over the course of the final half of our schedule.

Think of our defense if they were in a lot more pass rush situations due to opponents trying to keep up with the scoring our offense would do.

It would be putting them in situations over and over that they could shine in.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 11:29 AM
Also, anyone that says they wouldn't sign Peyton in this scenario is basically saying they are finexwith crappy quarterback play the next 2 years minimum.

Cassel would be the starter next year and the following year, it would either be Cassel again, or it would likely be a rookie starting which is almost never a good thing.

The following year (2014) we would have hope again IF THE PICK DOESN'T BUST.

Meanwhile, guys like Hali, DJ, Charles and Bowe would all be approaching the end of their careers and wouldn't have won a damn thing their whole careers.

I think this team owes it to its own players and us fans to sign a guy like Peyton Manning.

keg in kc
02-26-2012, 11:32 AM
Hell a bum off the street would take cassels jobSome would probably posit that Cassel has the upper hand due to Pioli.

(I don't believe that myself, but I acknowledge that others do)

Coogs
02-26-2012, 11:36 AM
Also, anyone that says they wouldn't sign Peyton in this scenario is basically saying they are finexwith crappy quarterback play the next 2 years minimum.

Cassel would be the starter next year and the following year, it would either be Cassel again, or it would likely be a rookie starting which is almost never a good thing.

The following year (2014) we would have hope again IF THE LICK DOESN'T BUST.

Meanwhile, guys like Hali, DJ, Charles and Bowe would all be approaching the end of their careers and wouldn't have won a damn thing their whole careers.

I think this team owes it to us to sign a guy like Peyton Manning.

I agree. And if Manning does not win us a Super Bowl, that does not really mean it would be a fail either. In that 3-4 year window with him, there is still going to be a Brees, Brady, Rodgers, E. Manning, Rothlesberger that are pretty much in their prime that you have to go through to get it done. But Manning would give us a chance to do just that, and that is all you can ask. You can not guarantee a Super Bowl win. Just ask Marino and Kelly.

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 11:40 AM
He may not bring a SB win but lift the franchise up
like I assume Montana did
making KC FA friendlier

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 11:45 AM
Some would probably posit that Cassel has the upper hand due to Pioli.

(I don't believe that myself, but I acknowledge that others do)

I agree there is no upper hand.

milkman
02-26-2012, 11:54 AM
Also, anyone that says they wouldn't sign Peyton in this scenario is basically saying they are finexwith crappy quarterback play the next 2 years minimum.

Cassel would be the starter next year and the following year, it would either be Cassel again, or it would likely be a rookie starting which is almost never a good thing.

The following year (2014) we would have hope again IF THE PICK DOESN'T BUST.

Meanwhile, guys like Hali, DJ, Charles and Bowe would all be approaching the end of their careers and wouldn't have won a damn thing their whole careers.

I think this team owes it to its own players and us fans to sign a guy like Peyton Manning.

What pick?

BossChief
02-26-2012, 12:01 PM
What pick?

The pick you and others are saying you would pass on Peyton to make (with a trade up) next year.

The pick that wouldn't happen anyway.

Tribal Warfare
02-26-2012, 12:04 PM
Dumb premise. If you get Peyton, it increases the chance you take a young QB. Its not like we need to add a lot of parts around Manning. We can afford to trade picks next year to move up.

or KC believes in Stanzi as a possible successor, just sayin.

beach tribe
02-26-2012, 12:07 PM
Bring in Peyton, draft a QB in 2013 when less teams are starved for one, and the talent pool of first round QBs is deeper.

Steron
02-26-2012, 12:07 PM
Don't bring in another broke-dick old man. Bring Orton back for two years. Trade up for RGIII or draft Tannehill at 11.

Tribal Warfare
02-26-2012, 12:09 PM
Don't bring in another broke-dick old man. Bring Orton back for two years. Trade up for RGIII or draft Tannehill at 11.

I'm kind of wary of Tannehill because of his foot injury, and how far along he is in his recovery.

Bowser
02-26-2012, 12:09 PM
Don't bring in another broke-dick old man. Bring Orton back for two years. Trade up for RGIII or draft Tannehill at 11.

1) yes

2) YES!!!

3) FFS, NO! SHIT!!



I don't want a guy pegged to be our QBotF that actually played more snaps at receiver than QB in college. Pass on Tannehill.

milkman
02-26-2012, 12:10 PM
The pick you and others are saying you would pass on Peyton to make (with a trade up) next year.

The pick that wouldn't happen anyway.

Once agian, I am responding to the question as it is posed.

In this hypothetical, we are not drafting a QB specifically because of Manning.

I understand that it is a virtually non-existent possibility that we'll draft a QB anyway, but all my repsonses are based solely on that one criteria.

If signing Manning is the only reason we don't make that pick, then I'm out.

If we're signing Manning and we still address the future, then I'm in.

whoman69
02-26-2012, 12:14 PM
or KC believes in Stanzi as a possible successor, just sayin.

I don't believe the organization has shown any faith in him so far.

smittysbar
02-26-2012, 12:20 PM
I am definitely not on the Tannehill bandwagon

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 12:22 PM
Lets get real most of you think any qb who drafted is the future qb lol. That just is is not the case. Most of you thought brodie was the future qb.

Tribal Warfare
02-26-2012, 12:33 PM
Lets get real most of you think any qb who drafted is the future qb lol. That just is is not the case. Most of you thought brodie was the future qb.

Until we get one, and there was substantial accolades with the said QB in college we have to look at that way until we see what they have on the field.

bricks
02-26-2012, 12:43 PM
Don't bring in another broke-dick old man. Bring Orton back for two years. Trade up for RGIII or draft Tannehill at 11.

Trading up for RGIII would cost the team way too much, it's not worth it. He is well out of the Chiefs reach.

Drafting Tannehill sounds possible. But, he's raw. How about if they signed Peyton and draft Tannehill? And then fix the Oline through FA.

Coogs
02-26-2012, 12:47 PM
If signing Manning is the only reason we don't make that pick, then I'm out.

If we're signing Manning and we still address the future, then I'm in.

We really have no way of knowing what they might do if they do sign Manning, either this year or in the next 2 to 3 years. I would like to hope that in the following year or two it would be adressed, but not know that, I think I would still roll the dice on Manning if he would be willing to come here.

And I know what the OP says... I just wish he would have left that part out.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 12:57 PM
Can we get a clarification on what "early in the draft" is?

I mean, are we talking no first round pick during the Manning years?

Does that include second round picks or is that still considered "early in the draft"?

Or is "early in the draft" only the top 20 picks or so?

I think that detail makes a big difference to some.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 02:00 PM
Besides all this age bs talk is really stupid. Tell that to Farve.

Favre never came off of 4 neck surgeries in one year. Fail.

DeezNutz
02-26-2012, 02:02 PM
Can we get a clarification on what "early in the draft" is?

I mean, are we talking no first round pick during the Manning years?

Does that include second round picks or is that still considered "early in the draft"?

Or is "early in the draft" only the top 20 picks or so?

I think that detail makes a big difference to some.

Traditional day-one pick: rounds 1-3.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 02:04 PM
Lets get real most of you think any qb who drafted is the future qb lol. That just is is not the case. Most of you thought brodie was the future qb.

Brodie was an injury prone third round pick. He is nowhere near the caliber a prospect RGIII or Luck are.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 02:17 PM
Trading up for RGIII would cost the team way too much, it's not worth it. He is well out of the Chiefs reach.

Drafting Tannehill sounds possible. But, he's raw. How about if they signed Peyton and draft Tannehill? And then fix the Oline through FA.

If they did that I would be fine with it. But I feel like they will just be kicking the can down the road. If they won't address the QB situation in the draft without Manning, what makes anyone think they will with him? It is not the Chiefs Way. Once Manning retired, they would again look to replace him with another veteran QB or career backup. We are drafting #11 this year, we most likely won't be drafting this high again for a while. We need to take advantage of this opportunity this year instead of waiting till next year like we always seem to do when addressing the QB situation.

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 02:32 PM
I bet 95 percent chance rg3 is just another jamarcus russel in the nfl.Its amazing how some just go of hype and don`t think.

Brock
02-26-2012, 02:34 PM
I bet 95 percent chance rg3 is just another jamarcus russel in the nfl.Its amazing how some just go of hype and don`t think.

Yeah, they're very similar players.

You => :drool:

tredadda
02-26-2012, 02:35 PM
I bet 95 percent chance rg3 is just another jamarcus russel in the nfl.Its amazing how some just go of hype and don`t think.

In what way are the two even remotely similar other than the obvious? Please explain how he is the next coming of Russell?

BigMeatballDave
02-26-2012, 02:56 PM
I bet 95 percent chance rg3 is just another jamarcus russel in the nfl.Its amazing how some just go of hype and don`t think.

Could he bust? Yes. The odds of a successful career are stacked against him.

That said, you're a dipshit.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 03:18 PM
I bet 95 percent chance rg3 is just another jamarcus russel in the nfl.Its amazing how some just go of hype and don`t think.

Epic amounts of thought in this post.

htismaqe
02-26-2012, 05:11 PM
If they did that I would be fine with it. But I feel like they will just be kicking the can down the road. If they won't address the QB situation in the draft without Manning, what makes anyone think they will with him? It is not the Chiefs Way. Once Manning retired, they would again look to replace him with another veteran QB or career backup. We are drafting #11 this year, we most likely won't be drafting this high again for a while. We need to take advantage of this opportunity this year instead of waiting till next year like we always seem to do when addressing the QB situation.

They're not gonna draft a QB early. It's just not going to happen.

Therefore we need to do whatever it takes to get over the hump NOW.

Pablo
02-26-2012, 05:13 PM
I bet 95 percent chance rg3 is just another jamarcus russel in the nfl.Its amazing how some just go of hype and don`t think.There's a 95 percent chance your shoes have Velcro straps.

morphius
02-26-2012, 05:15 PM
We seem to be continually out of the range to draft a near lock QB in the first round, so I'm good with taking Manning.

Where we sit right now, our option would be Manning or Tannehill (or however spell it) and I don't think anyone is very big on Tannehill.

el borracho
02-26-2012, 05:18 PM
This organization needs a 1st round QB. If it doesn't happen this year, it has to happen next, IMO.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 05:29 PM
Peyton would be the first first round pick to play for us since Warren Moon.

O.city
02-26-2012, 05:44 PM
THe day Manning gets cut, bring him in for the docs to look over and for him to workout. If he checks out sign him before he leaves.


He could give us 3 or 4 years of a SB window if he can stay healthy. Don't see another guy out there that could do that.

He would fill the stadium, the parking lot, and Clarks wallet.

KCrockaholic
02-26-2012, 05:45 PM
Peyton would be the first first round pick to play for us since Warren Moon.

What?

whoman69
02-26-2012, 05:47 PM
There is absolutely no scenario where the team's QB can mandate that his replacement cannot be drafted. This whole situation is stupid. Are you trying to drum up support against Manning?

BossChief
02-26-2012, 05:57 PM
What?

1997 was the last time a quarterback played for emus that was originally drafted in the first round. Warren Moon.

Before that, I think it goes back to blackledge.

Brock
02-26-2012, 06:00 PM
1997 was the last time a quarterback played for emus that was originally drafted in the first round. Warren Moon.
.

Yeah, no.

O.city
02-26-2012, 06:01 PM
If the reports that he is already throwing the ball with 80 to 90 percent velocity, I think he'll be fine health wise.


It's kinda crazy cool to think about what kind of team we could put aroudn the guy next season, if all goes accordingly.

What are defenses gonna do? Put 8 in the box to stop Charles and Richardson (fingers crossed) or drop into coverage.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 06:05 PM
There is absolutely no scenario where the team's QB can mandate that his replacement cannot be drafted. This whole situation is stupid. Are you trying to drum up support against Manning?

Cmon man.

That's not at all what this is about.

It's basically a question of if you would rather have another "Joe Montana situation" where a replacement was never drafted, but without the injury and trade compensation situation to go along with it, or would you rather wait and hope they would go another route to find a viable starting quarterback for this team?

Shit, Deez voted FOR manning.

Argue the post, not the poster.

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 06:13 PM
Cmon man.

That's not at all what this is about.

It's basically a question of if you would rather have another "Joe Montana situation" where a replacement was never drafted, but without the injury and trade compensation situation to go along with it, or would you rather wait and hope they would go another route to find a viable starting quarterback for this team?

Shit, Deez voted FOR manning.

Argue the post, not the poster.

SHUT UP

Chocolate Hog
02-26-2012, 06:14 PM
SHUT UP

Why the fuck do you continue to post here?

BossChief
02-26-2012, 06:16 PM
1997 was the last time a quarterback played for emus that was originally drafted in the first round. Warren Moon.

Before that, I think it goes back to blackledge.

Yeah, no.

Yeah, I don't know why I said 1997....Moon played for us in 2000 and was the last first round pick quarterback to play for us...before that, Blackledge.

Brock
02-26-2012, 06:17 PM
Yeah, I don't know why I said 1997....Moon played for us in 2000 and was the last first round pick quarterback to play for us...before that, Blackledge.

No, you're still wrong.

DeezNutz
02-26-2012, 06:26 PM
Moon was the first-round pick of the Quebec Sizzle back in '72, which is what Boss is alluding to.

BossChief
02-26-2012, 06:29 PM
Moon
Green
Huard
Croyle
Thigpen
Cassel
Orton

Damn, just looked it up and I don't know why I thought Moon was a first rounder.

Shit, that means the last time a quarterback that was originally drafted in the first round and played for us was all the way back to Blackledge.

Sad.

Blackledge in 1987.

WOW.

BigMeatballDave
02-26-2012, 06:32 PM
Moon was the first-round pick of the Quebec Sizzle back in '72, which is what Boss is alluding to.

LMAO

BossChief
02-26-2012, 06:55 PM
Moon was the first-round pick of the Quebec Sizzle back in '72, which is what Boss is alluding to.Well played.

I must have had him mixed up with Willie Beaman.

O.city
02-26-2012, 07:58 PM
Sign Manning up.

smittysbar
02-26-2012, 08:30 PM
Well played.

I must have had him mixed up with Willie Beaman.

Also not a first rounder

Guru
02-26-2012, 08:32 PM
Just think, if we got Peyton we would have our first QB that will host SNL.

Guru
02-26-2012, 08:35 PM
Peyton would be the first first round pick to play for us since Warren Moon.

So NONE of our other first round picks have played for us?

BossChief
02-26-2012, 08:50 PM
So NONE of our other first round picks have played for us?
The last time we drafted a qb in the first round was 1983.

I was 5.

I didn't only say OUR first round picks.

Shit, almost every quarterback we have had over the last 30 years has been a 7th rounder or later.

That is so incredibly fucked up that you have to go back to 1987 to find a Chiefs team with a first round quarterback THEY DRAFTED starting.

We have got to be the most clueless franchise.

ChiefsCountry
02-26-2012, 08:53 PM
Peyton would be the first first round pick to play for us since Warren Moon.

Warren Moon wasn't even drafted in the NFL. Blackledge was the last first round Qb on the roster.
Posted via Mobile Device

BossChief
02-26-2012, 09:04 PM
Anybody else?

Thig Lyfe
03-02-2012, 03:50 PM
I wants me some Manning! YEAH!