Perfect Fit for Manning
 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...content_stream

After spending the first 14 years of his NFL career in Indianapolis, could Peyton Manning move to Kansas City?

Sometimes we don't write what we think because there's not much to substantiate it. Cool. Now that this issue has been resolved, it's time to discuss a sensible suitor for arguably the greatest quarterback of our generation.

Peyton's Place?

Why? Because, due to a slip of the tongue, the Kansas City Chiefs are getting some run in the Peyton Manning sweepstakes -- a potential pairing that should have been mentioned weeks ago. Kansas City, at least in my mind, has always been the best destination for Manning. There just haven't been many facts to go on. Yet, there is circumstantial evidence.

Before listing the reasons the multi-time MVP should be playing at Arrowhead this fall, perhaps it's important to rank what constitutes a good fit between any megastar and a new address:

1. Availability: Obviously, the player has to be attainable. (And Manning should be, barring an Irsay surprise of Mayflower truck proportions.)

2. Organizational leeway: Funds, or at least the wherewithal to generate discretionary funds.

3. Ancillary parts to attract the player: In this case, weapons outside, a good running back, possibly a defense, mostly ... some chance in hell of winning.

4. A great place to play: Call this "The Anti-Veterans Stadium Principle."

5. Familiarity: Be it the player's familiarity with the front office (and vice versa) or the area.

For Manning and the Chiefs, this list reads: 1) check, 2) check, 3) check, 4) check, and 5) check.

Starting in inverse order, the Chiefs are certainly familiar with Manning, as Crennel and Pioli faced him numerous times while with the New England Patriots. Arrowhead Stadium is one of the loudest locales in pro football, and the passion of the fans in Kansas City make it a great place to play, particularly for a veteran player.

Meanwhile the Chiefs have an emerging young talent in Jon Baldwin, a decent receiver in Steve Breaston, and -- providing he's franchised (it's looking that way) -- the productive Dwayne Bowe. Throw in Jamaal Charles and Tony Moeaki returning from injury, and an improving defense ... Well, as you can see, K.C. clearly has the ancillary parts.

On to "organizational leeway," which can mean several things, but usually it applies to available dough and the willingness to spend it. The Chiefs finished over $20 million under the cap in 2011, and per the new CBA rules, can roll it over to his year to add to their already abundant cap space. Done and done. They have the means, whereas the New York Jets -- even after restructuring D'Brickashaw Ferguson's contract -- do not. That leads us to other organizational-leeway issues for alleged Manning suitors:

Arizona Cardinals: What to do with Kevin Kolb and his sizeable contract? Junk the experiment after one year and a foot injury? Maybe. ... But doubtful. I like the Chiefs better.

Miami Dolphins: Will Owner Stephen Ross insist on Manning over Matt Flynn, despite Miami's lack of stability at the position for over a decade, and the fact the Colts star might only play two more years? And despite the fact that Joe Philbin already knows Flynn (who's a ripe 26 years old) backwards and forwards? Still like the Chiefs better.

Washington Redskins: They would surely sign Reggie Wayne to help land Manning (they sorely need WR help anyway). And Mike Shanahan is not on a 20-year contract. However, much like Miami, quarterback is an interminable issue for this franchise. Signing Manning would be a band-aid. Still like the Chiefs better.

Seattle Seahawks: The Seahawks aren't into band-aids at this point. "I just know if you panic at the position, it can set the organization back. So we're not going to do that," GM John Schneider said last week. There you go.

And then there are the Indianapolis Colts, who obviously control issue No. 1 (player availability) for matching a megastar to a team.

While Owner Jim Irsay has far from ruled out Manning's return to the organization, tweet salvos and the mano-a-mano nature of "He's not healthy" ... "Yes I am" has played out enough over the last several weeks to merit speculation of the quarterback's departure. The big elephant in the room is the $28 million roster bonus due on March 8, and how much Manning would be willing to restructure his deal, thus doing Indy a solid. To that end, Irsay had this to say to SI.com's Don Banks recently:

"That's the last he'd want to do for this team, put us in that kind of salary cap situation," Irsay said. "He wants to come back and he wants to win. I should say I assume he wants to come back. With Peyton, sometimes you never know ... I think he has some real comfort in the idea of finishing his career here, but I think he's conflicted perhaps given the circumstances. We'll find out soon."

Yes, Manning is surely conflicted, perhaps most by something Irsay mentioned in that very quote. He wants to win.

Harrison: Substantial subplots
As we head into the spring, Elliot Harrison provides eight intriguing storylines emerging for the 2012 campaign. More ...
That's going to be tough, considering several of the Colts' key players are free agents. You know the list: Wayne, Jeff Saturday, Robert Mathis, Pierre Garcon and so on. Secondly, the new head coach is a rookie head coach. And while most Colts fans welcome the change from Jim Caldwell, Chuck Pagano hasn't proven anything yet. Not to mention, Peyton will likely have to compete for his own job. Maybe not this year, but how long will new management sit a guy like Andrew Luck if Manning delivers a Wild Card loss, like the last time he played? Fair? No. Life in the NFL? Yes.

So of course Manning is conflicted. Why not go to a team that already knows the potential of its own quarterback, i.e. knows Manning is a clear upgrade (Chiefs)? Why not go to a team that -- barring every important guy going on IR -- has the parts to compete in its conference now (Chiefs)? Why not go to a team that, despite how little this might mean to Manning at this stage of his career, can afford to pay him what he deserves (Chiefs)?

Peyton's likely to don new colors in 2012. And it certainly will be awkward to see the Colts icon in a foreign uniform. But at least Manning could avoid having to pay a teammate on his new club for the rights to No. 18.

After all, nobody on the Chiefs wears that number.

This hat is a perfect fit for Manning.

http://fashionablygeek.com/wp-conten...at.jpeg?cb5e28

From Peyton Manning's perspective, Kansas City has to look like the best situation for him. We have the most talent out of any teams that will pursue him. We are ready to contend NOW with a proper QB, if you were him would you want to go to the Cards or the Redskins? come on man, you know he wouldn't.

Super Bowl.

I wonder why that is?!?!?!?!

like i've said before, i think Manning is our first target.

1. sign Manning, if we can
2. trade up for RGIII, if we can
3. Sign Orton

I don't know if Tannehill fits anywhere in our options or not. If he does i would imagine he would be #3 and that bumps Orton down to the 4th option.

If Reggie Wayne comes with him, that would be awesome.

Could it be that Polio is going cheap with Carr in order to "Save Money" for Manning?

Please God let it be.

Wrong! He's planning on giving Cassel an 80 million dollar contract extension. :D

And this needed it's thread after all the 100s of threads about Manning...

Well....if the Redskins don't trade up for RGIII.....Tannehill won't even make it #11 for us to worry about. And as much as I would love for us to trade up for RGIII.....it just isn't 100% realistic. I think it comes down to Manning....and if we're outbid.....Orton.

Have you seen his postseason record?The Chiefs are a lock to win the Superbowl,hell the entire front page should be Manning threads.

Best chance to win a Super Bowl in the next 10 years, trade up for RGIII.

Peyton FAIL at that.

sign manning and let him groom RGIII/Tanhill as QBOTF that's a win/win

That's NOT happening.

If we sign Manning....there is no way that this FO gives up the draft picks to trade up for either of those guys. If we sign Manning....people better get ready to see an offensive lineman taken with our 1st pick. Either Reiff, Martin or DeCastro.

Too soon after Samuel Parker.

I see no problem with this.

If they sign Manning, Bowe and Soliai in the offseason.....they can pick whatever they ****ing want at #11.

And really....I'd want to see how Stanzi could develop for a year or two under Manning.

On shitty teams with no defense? Yeah makes sense that he doesn't have a great record. The Chiefs have a shitty record too, so why bother with any QB? Douche.

That and wait after the FAILURE of winning post season if Manning is going retire or give it another year, assuming of course his neck doesn't go "snap" before year end. True fans get what they want.

im not saying its even in the realm of possibility but i would JIMP if something like that happened

Did I miss when we retired Sammy Parker's jersey?

JFC.....get over it man and STFU.

Or they could keep the picks, and draft a QB next year. This isn't the last year there will be QB's in the draft. Looks like there will be more than two next year too, and thats not counting guys who will emerge next year too. RG3 wasn't a first round pick last year, actually a lot of people didn't see him as an NFL QB either at this time last year.

Try doing a little research before you make claims like that.Douche.

LOL

I hope you two aren't serious.

I'm not going get over "it". I am expressing I hate the notion of bringing in yet another retread QB even if his name is Peyton ****ing Manning.

He was super fast.

Then we should just suck for next years best QB, or hope for the best that Stanzi get's a shot and still take a QB with our top pick. I don't care I just want too see our own draft pick QB take over sooner than later & would hope he becomes the real deal & continue to look deep into drafts for QBs. Lord Tebow knows we havn't put stock in QB from the draft and our post season record for the past 40 years reflects that fact.

We should have drafted Tebow when we had the chance. Obviously you need a QB who wins games, who cares about having a good passer at the position.

Whoever wins the NC next year, we need to draft that QB no matter what!

So, IF we sign Manning, what does our QB depth look like? 1st: Manning, 2nd: Stanzi, 3rd: ? I am assuming we will cut Cassel if this happens, correct?

LMAO

Yeah, because our front office is going to want to lose on purpose.

OH! but if that doesn't work, we can just rely on our shitty 5th round QB that was so shitty he couldn't even get on the field in front of Tyler Palko! Awesome!

Probably not. They've paid him most of his money. He's making only a bit more than backup money now...I think.

1. Manning, 2. Cassel, 3. Stanzi.

Plus, we've got all of our draft picks...maybe more with trade down still possibilities still strong.

I like the idea of Manning for 2-3 years, a lot. We've got most of the remaining pieces to go deep into the playoffs. Manning, and a solid draft with couple key FAs and we're in great shape. And, haven't mortgaged the draft or our future.

Pioli wont cut Cashell. He will be #2 as in Raiduhs #2 on the roster & #3Stanzi won't get looked at for another season nor will we be drafting a top tier QB, however they may still draft a QB with a late round pick or call up Uncle Rico for duty, he never got his chance & can still probly throw a football over mountain tops.

They would be almost obligated to release Cassel to avoid all the (potential) chatter during the season and to show Manning and the public that this is Manning's team.

No way they release Cassel.....especially with Manning's neck. They'll keep Cassel around as a viable backup that knows the offense that could step in if Manning goes down.

Thanks for the response.

If this is the case, I can't wait to see the pouty expression on Cassel's face when he is sitting on the bench. Vindictive? Yeah.... but vindictivity is inevitable with that dude.

I dont think so.

It'd be pretty damn clear that it would be Manning's team. You don't bring Manning in to 'compete' with Cassel.

What I do worry about however, is that Pioli would think that he could continue to groom Cassel under the guidance of Manning, so that Cassel can continue his epic fail once Manning retires.

Ummmm. If Manning came to KC I don't think the public would need confirmation by Cassel's release that it would be Manning's team.

Oh man... if coach would have put Uncle Rico in 4th quarter.... he would have taken state.

It is probably already mentioned in 5 other threads but 18 has been retired. When KC brought in Joe Montana they asked Len Dawson if Joe could use his retired number and Len said no...so Montana wore 19. Maybe Manning could also wear 19. Brings up al kinds of marketing possibilities. Since Emmitt Thomas is on the staff, he might be willing to have Peyton wear it.

I've always thought it was silly to retire jersey numbers. The player should be honored, and the number should be remembered. With a limited number of jersey numbers and hopefully the NFL goes on for many, many, years, you start having problems giving out the needed jersey numbers. Letting a player wear an "honored" number would be one way of also paying respect and remembering that past player.

Long live medicrocracy & retread quarterbacks! No they are not going to lose on purpose duh. With Peyton Manning we can win plenty of games to hender our chances of drafting a top tier QB in next years draft and still fail in post season so history repeats itself. I'm not calling Stanzi be our future QB but want to see him over Cassel or bringing in Peyton so that we can continue to search the draft for our QBotf. We are not going get any where until Chiefs grow a set of balls with playing draft pick QBs perfurably from the first round pick of top of the class. JMHO. 30+ years gone with out picking a QB in the first & ****ing retreads to lead the way of sucking those years dry of glory.

Ah, Lenny wore 16...

Wrong. Lenny was #16. So was Joe in SF.

He never mentioned what number Dawson wore.

But, IIRC, Dawson offered his number to Montana and it was Montana that said no.

Signing Manning is going to make alot of that cap room go away
Cassel should be cut & shouldn't want to stay
He does have some balls

Billick thinks we are one of 3 teams that make sense...

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/p...t-sense-030112

Whoops!:doh!:

I don't think he was saying that Lenny wore #18. Just that 18 is also retired. Emmitt Thomas

18 was clearly Samie Parkers number.

In regard to Jersey Numbers, there's just some that are off limits.

One of my biggest gripes in Madden is signing a LB and then going into the game and seeing a #58 out there.

It shouldnt bother me, and I have friends that dont even care about it, but I end up quitting the game, going into roster and changing the number, bitching about the stupid game and its failure to recognize retired numbers.


I thought it was damn cool of Joe Montana to decline the offer to wear 16.

PBJ First Down Manning PBJ

LMAO

I'm really quite torn on the Manning issue... on one hand, its easy for me to look back at the Montana days & wonder if Peyton could duplicate or top them, which is certainly possible given that he'd be working with MUCH better receivers & te's than Joe.

But, i also want a TRUE QBOTF... the young hotshot 'born & raised' in KC, able to take us into the next 10-13 years and theres always the issue of Mannings neck, how many games might we actually get out of him & how close to his old greatness will he be?

So, so torn...

Hell yes. plenty of upside to this as long as Payton is healthy. He could give us 2 to 3 seasons of competitive possibly championship football, all while training the young man to take over.

I can't even begin to state how much I loathe Payed-a-ton.

Sign him up, oh and shit just got real.

I'm not torn on this at all. I say "Why the hell not?".

What the Chiefs have been doing for the last 20 years hasn't been working. The Chiefs don't have a quarterback of the future. They also don't have a quarterback of the present.

There is NO risk to signing Peyton Manning. They don't have to give up any players. If they sign him and it turns out he can't play, they are no worse off than if they don't sign him. Either way we would start a mediocre quarterback next year.

But if they sign him AND he turns out be healthy enough to be 90% of what he used to be, then it would be a brilliant move and they'd be instant Super Bowl contenders.

Who cares if Peyton won't be here 5 years from now?

From Clark Hunts standpoint, he has to be pushing this along a little.

He spent all that money to offer more luxury boxes and other stuff to the stadium only to have it be only filled to 2/3 capacity and close to empty luxury boxes (owners get 100% of revenue from luxuryboxes) signing Peyton would allow him to fill the stadium to capacity every week, sell out season tickets, charge wharever he would want for the boxes...jersey sales, local tv contracts.

It's simply a move that almost has to happen because it just makes too much sense.

A move like signing Peyton Manning clears Pioli of ALL candy wrapper incidents and would be the most exciting move the Chiefs have made in my lifetime.

That has always made me mad too :cuss: ****ing stupid. That doesn't show respect for the game or players we love as fans.

This article works a hell of lot better than a billboard & cheaper
Look out KC strip bars there's some billboard $$ burning holes in pockets

He is such a flip flopping puppet.

Not too long ago, they asked him about Peyton and KC and he said we should stick with Cassel and gave all the bobble head answers for such.

Now, this.

My mistake. I thought he was inferring that Lenny wore #18.

The offseason where the Chiefs signed both Joe Montana and Marcus Allen was pretty damn exciting. This would rank right up there with that.

A speaker implies. A listener infers. /grammar police

I was 15 (The Montana trade happened on my birthday, even) and while I was fully aware of what happened, I didn't even think Montana would make it a full year after all his injuries.

We were also extremely close to the cap at the time and knew it cost us a first round pick.

This move not only allows us to finally have a franchise quarterback, we could have him for 3-4 years and we don't have to give up a pick to get him.

Give me Peyton Manning at 36 (he is still 35 right now, actually, but he would be 36 when next season starts) and a rookie Trent Richardson over Joe Montana and Marcus Allen in their twilight every day.

Shit, add Manning, Berry, Charles and Moeaki to last years squad and we would have made some serious noise.

Snap. Crackle. Pop.

Sadly, I find that the most plausible.

This all hinges on his neck. But I'd be at least as excited as when we brought Joe and Marcus in. I hated that after that we basically became the place where 49er QB's come to die, but it was a good move at the time and almost got us to the dance.

The sound of fear?

We add Peyton and have a solid draft, we would win the next 3 AFCW championships.

Good luck with Jesus, though.

I mean that sincerely...I want our teams to get back to relevance so that the games are interesting again.

Manning and an improved Tebow would go a long way towards that goal.

Given what we've went through with Montana and what we've been through since, I'm all for bringing in Manning...

Incomplete. Incomplete. Interception.

The NFL is in the business of entertainment. It will certainly be interesting to watch how the Manning story unfolds for this next season.

It might not end well for the Chiefs, but I would like to see them go after Peyton. If nothing else it would maybe signal the end of Cassel as the Chief's QB.

If Manning is healthy, I'm not sure that he will only play for 3 or 4 years. If the guy can stay healthy, I could see him play for 5 or 6 more years, the way the dude loves football.


If he can stay healthy obviously.

I've seen this somewhere before.

OH SHIT! WHICH DO I POST IN??? I IS SO CONFUUUUUSED!!111

THIS

WTF is going on.