Let's say the unthinkable happens.

[Direckshun]

It has been the most poorly covered potential huge story in sports. The Colts and Irsay made zero bones about the fact that they would make him the highest paid player in the NFL by a decent margin and Manning had ZERO interest in even looking at their offer.

So you have to ask why would a guy at his age risk playing out the season(especially given his neck issue) and possibly taking a serious injury that would cost him a $75 to $100 million contract with probably $50 plus million garanteed?

Normally it would be about $$$$ but the Colts weren't even going to put up a fight. They were pretty much willing to roll over and give him a blank check (within reason). And he then threw his name in with Brady and Brees on the lawsuit hoping to become an UFA.

Again wanting to become an UFA would be an advantage to gain financial leverage but he doesn't need any as they want to make him the highest paid.

So what do you think he is angling for? My guess is to get out of town and go to a place where he can win a few more rings before retiring is my guess.

Let's say Manning wants out. Colts have the franchise tag on him currently.

The question is: are you willing to trade for Peyton Manning.

35 year old first-ballot hall of famer. Has neck issues, but otherwise should be performing at least two, if not three full 16-game seasons and postseasons at a Top 3 level.

Well here's what the question should be, because we'd all like to trade for Peyton Manning """""if the price was right""""".

So what's the right price for you?

[Direckshun]

Peyton as a Chief would command a huge salary that would mean only middling players would be acquirable.

Of course, it's possible that really good WRs flock to KC once we trade for him hypothetically and play for pennies on the dollar. It's happened before.

So you gotta say that, with our current team, Manning's presence makes us a Super Bowl contender for two years, maybe three.

I think that's worth a first rounder in 2012, a third rounder in 2012, and a second rounder in 2013. Toss in some lower picks if you want.

[LOCOChief]

We'd win the SB with Manning

[Rausch]

Let's say Manning wants out. Colts have the franchise tag on him currently.

The question is: are you willing to trade for Peyton Manning.


No.

No, double no, and FUCK NO!:cuss:

[Direckshun]

We'd win the SB with Manning

Teams dropping 8 to stifle Manning.

Charles can run for 160 a game with that kind of coverage. McCluster can add 50 and the veteran big back of the month adds another 50. We have the best run game in the league for another three years with Manning alone.

Our defense continues bending but not breaking... Bowe and Baldwin, and surely we'd get a handful of good WRs to flock to KC with Manning under center.

SB could be possible. There are teams built to beat the Colts, like the Jets or the Ravens, but our defense can slow them down enough for Manning and Charles to put up 25 points.

[Direckshun]

No.

No, double no, and **** NO!:cuss:

Well it's not going to happen. Get your panties straightened out.

Fun to think about, though.

[The Franchise]

So the question is.....would you trade 3 draft picks away for a "chance" to win the Superbowl for the next 2-3 years.




Oh.....and I don't think that Haley and Manning could co-exist together.

[RealSNR]

Cassel for Manning. Straight up.

But seriously. I'd do a 2012 1st and 2nd, a 2013 2nd or 3rd, and Cassel. That's pretty fair deal if you ask me.

[Frazod]

We'd win the SB with Manning

Right. Because we won a Super Bowl with Montana.

[Molitoth]

Absolutely Yes. Manning will make all of our WR's good... and bring a confidence to this team where they know they can succeed. I have no doubt we could go far in the playoffs with Manning.

[Molitoth]

Right. Because we won a Super Bowl with Montana.

Hey, I'd say the Montana trade was well worth it. Even without winning a SB, that team was epic.

[philfree]

Would Manning be near as good in a different offensive scheme? Or are we going to bring in the Colts OC too?

[RealSNR]

Right. Because we won a Super Bowl with Montana.Hill and Allen don't even compare to Jamaal Charles. Also, Bowe and Baldwin > any of Montana's receivers.

That team had a better defense, but this 2011 team has some serious weapons. I chided the Vikings as much as the next guy for selling out their souls for an old QB. It's risky, but this is the kind of stuff that happens when you're as desperate for a Super Bowl as we Chiefs fans are.

Also, who knows what happens if Montana stays healthy. Manning's got a consecutive games streak that isn't going to be broken any time soon. I doubt he breaks Favre's record but who knows

[Huffman83]

Right. Because we won a Super Bowl with Montana.

Well it's sad to say they got closer w/ Montana than KC has w/ any other QB.

[Direckshun]

So the question is.....would you trade 3 draft picks away for a "chance" to win the Superbowl for the next 2-3 years.

A good chance? Yes.

Oh.....and I don't think that Haley and Manning could co-exist together.

Ha. Excellent point.

[Rausch]

Well it's not going to happen. Get your panties straightened out.

Fun to think about, though.

No, it's not...

[Direckshun]

No, it's not...

Welcome to ChiefsPlanet. We have many fine threads for you to shit in.

[talastan]

Would Manning be near as good in a different offensive scheme? Or are we going to bring in the Colts OC too?

Manning is pretty much the Colts OC.

[Sofa King]

Never gonna happen.


That being said, Manning in red and gold would be awesome.

[Fish]

Well it's not going to happen. Get your panties straightened out.

Fun to think about, though.

How are we expected to think about the unthinkable?

[Rausch]

Hey, I'd say the Montana trade was well worth it. Even without winning a SB, that team was epic.

It was worth it because for a whole year EVERYONE BELIEVED.

And then we got blessed and lucked out vs. the Steelers. And we thought "Perhaps, this one time, some magic."

Then we came back and tossed the rock in Buddy Ryan's face!

And the KC fanbase ****ing EXPLODED.

And then.

Then.

Then.........then there was sitting DT in an AFC title game.

There was Joe going down and Fumble-King-Krieg $#itting himself.

There was Marty's azzhole slamming shut so fast Cheyenne Mountain called in hopes they could increase safety procedures.

Montana took an offense full of scrubs, never-were's, has-beens, and a limp-d!(k HC and made a legitimate run at the super bowl...

[Trevo_410]

he's not the right 53.

[philfree]

I don't think you'd have to trade for Manning anyway. With his lawsuit with the NFL he'll end up not having the the franchise tag on him because of the Reggie White rule. He and the actual players named in the lawsuit will be exempt. At this point I think it's more bout his freedom of choice then it is actual money. I'm pretty confident that he isn't going to choose KC for his new home.

[Hammock Parties]

Cassel is already getting lots of monies. Clark is not handing out more monies.

[Hammock Parties]

Manning is headed to Minnesota anyway.

Just like Indy, but you have a top 5 RB and defense.

[LOCOChief]

Right. Because we won a Super Bowl with Montana.

Right, because this is the same team as that team.

[sedated]

Peyton as a Chief would command a huge salary that would mean only middling players would be acquirable.

Of course, it's possible that really good WRs flock to KC once we trade for him hypothetically and play for pennies on the dollar. It's happened before.


Manning doesn't really need great wideouts. He's done what he does with guys like Collie and Garcon.

As for salary, we needed to hand Cassel a huge bonus just to get to the salary floor 2 years ago. We were $30 million under last year, and the cap (and minimum %) is expected to go up with the new CBA. Plus, at least 50% of our offense and 80% of our defense will be on rookie contracts next year. We've got money.

[Okie_Apparition]

Manning might coach in KC one day. Perhaps even buy the CHiefs after this payday

[Frazod]

Right, because this is the same team as that team.

I'd take that team over this one in a heartbeat.

We went 10-6 last year playing a last place cupcake schedule that was about as tough as KU's 2007 schedule and still managed to lose six games, including two to the fucking Raiders. And then got crushed like an empty beer can against a real team in the playoffs. Other than San Diego, seriously, who did we beat last year? People are reading way too much into that weak ass division win. We are NOT ready for prime time yet, and we have far too many holes to part with the ridiculous amount of picks the Colts would demand for Manning.

[JD10367]

One player does not a team make. Otherwise, the Colts would have 10 Lombardis by now. If you could add Manning without the drain on both draft picks and the salary cap, sure. But the improvement he'd make at the QB position would be offset by the hindrance he'd create at the other 52 spots due to lack of funds and picks. I don't think it's worth it for the Chiefs at the moment.

[Okie_Apparition]

It would be cool to see a stealth bomber try and land on his forehead

[RealSNR]

One player does not a team make. Otherwise, the Colts would have 10 Lombardis by now. If you could add Manning without the drain on both draft picks and the salary cap, sure. But the improvement he'd make at the QB position would be offset by the hindrance he'd create at the other 52 spots due to lack of funds and picks. I don't think it's worth it for the Chiefs at the moment.
Manning is (or maybe "was" is a better word) the kind of player that has won division after division, playoff game after playoff game, and (well, he's got one) a Superbowl. He did that while taking up a huge portion of his team's funds.

The Colts are weak ass at so many spots it's ridiculous. If Manning ever left that team, they might be the worst team in the AFC.

If the Chiefs acquired Manning, I'll gladly take our holes in the roster over the Colts'.

[ModSocks]

Manning is (or maybe "was" is a better word) the kind of player that has won division after division, playoff game after playoff game, and (well, he's got one) a Superbowl. He did that with taking up a huge portion of his team's funds. The Colts are weak ass at so many spots it's ridiculous. If Manning ever left that team, they might be the worst team in the AFC.

But but but they have Dwight Freeney! And Robert Mathis and and and Reggie Wayne

[Direckshun]

How are we expected to think about the unthinkable?

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Yu16eUQwCWU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Direckshun]

If you made Matt Cassel (probably the exact average NFL QB, IMO) the starter in Indy...

How many games do they win in an average season?

7 in a good year? 4 in a bad year?

[Sofa King]

But but but they have Dwight Freeney! And Robert Mathis and and and Reggie Wayne

And Bob Sanders and Marvin Harrison!

[RealSNR]

But but but they have Dwight Freeney! And Robert Mathis and and and Reggie Wayne
And Pat Angerererererererere /BossChief

[RealSNR]

If you made Matt Cassel (probably the exact average NFL QB, IMO) the starter in Indy...

How many games do they win in an average season?

7 in a good year? 4 in a bad year?That depends how bad of a coach Jim Caldwell really is.

If he's REALLY bad, then 4 wins.

If he's just bad..... 4 wins.

[Direckshun]

They have a good but frequently injured RB and a twilighting WR, and a really good TE. They also have two great passrushers.

And that's it.

That's a 4-12 team without Manning.

[Direckshun]

I'm just saying, the degree of improvement with Manning on this team is Super Bowl worthy.

[Thig Lyfe]

Indianapolis will go to shit, Cleveland-style, when and if Manning leaves. Not just the team, but the whole fuckin' city.

I'd love for him to play in KC.

[suzzer99]

Hey, I'd say the Montana trade was well worth it. Even without winning a SB, that team was epic.

And we might have won a SB if Kimble Anders could hold on to a ball that Montana gently put right on his hands from 10 feet away.

[Direckshun]

Indianapolis will go to shit, Cleveland-style, when and if Manning leaves. Not just the team, but the whole ****in' city.

I'd love for him to play in KC.

Think a 2012 1st and 3rd, plus a 2013 2nd, would net him in a trade?

Would you fork that over if it did?

[Ming the Merciless]

we wouldve won the superbowl in 08 with manning

/claythan

[RealSNR]

we wouldve won the superbowl in 08 with manning

/claythanManning AND Thigpen?

That's too much starpower. Arrowhead's foundation would crumble

[Inspector]

Well it's sad to say they got closer w/ Montana than KC has w/ any other QB.

Dawson may have actually gotten even closer.

But I know what you mean.:thumb:

[Frazod]

Dawson may have actually gotten even closer.

But I know what you mean.:thumb:

He probably wasn't alive then, or (like me) was too young at the time to remember it.

These two categories fit most of us at this point. :(

[Thig Lyfe]

Think a 2012 1st and 3rd, plus a 2013 2nd, would net him in a trade?

Would you fork that over if it did?

That might be feasible, and yeah, I think it would be worth it. An elite quarterback gives any team a shot at a championship, especially when that elite quarterback has an elite running back he can hand it off to.

[bigbucks24]

You think Manning will be available for a 1st, 3rd and a next year 2nd?

Remember (ones that I can think of)
Jay Cutler went for 2 1st
Ricky Williams went for an entire draft
and then 2 1st
Joey Galloway went for 2 1st
Keyshawn Johnson went for 2 1st
Roy Williams went for 1st, 3rd and 6th
Brandon Marshall went for 2 2nd

I think it takes way more to get arguably the greatest passing QB in the history of the NFL. Indy is ready to make him the highest paid player in the NFL.

The better question might be: Are you willing to pay 2 1st and a (or maybe 2) 2nd?

[philfree]

The question is: are you willing to trade for Peyton Manning.


He's going to end up a UFA at the end of the lawsuit. Just like Reggie White.

[bigbucks24]

I can't imagine the NFL owners and the NFLPA agreeing to a new CBA that involves every player except the ones in the lawsuit. And them having a different set of rules.

How is this situation like Reggie White?

[philfree]

I can't imagine the NFL owners and the NFLPA agreeing to a new CBA that involves every player except the ones in the lawsuit. And them having a different set of rules.

How is this situation like Reggie White?

Because part of the deal in the Rggie White lawsuit ended up being that he couldn't have the franchise put on him however the rest of the players under the then new CBA could be "Tagged". Because the NFL agreed to it. The NFL will agree to it again with Manning and the others who are listed in the lawsuit. Least ways from what i've read that's what I believe will happen.

[bigbucks24]

Here's one man's opinion.

The last antitrust litigation wherewas filed in 1990. The settlement was reached in 1993 after the players “won” in a jury trial. Due to the length of time involved and the plaintiffs’ victory in court, the named plaintiffs got an exemption from the franchise tag. All of this was due to the tidal wave of leverage the players had at that moment in time.

Fast forward to the present: The owners haven’t even filed an answer to the complaint filed less than 4 months ago. ;-)

There’s zero – let me repeat – zero chance that these “special guys” receive a ‘Get out of jail free’ card for their “4 months of hard work”, all at the expense of their brethren whom must live with the franchise tag.

I don't see them getting a lifetime exemption, but weirder things have happened.

[philfree]

Here's one man's opinion.



I don't see them getting a lifetime exemption, but weirder things have happened.

Fair enough. I based my opinon on something similar to what you posted except if was obviously the reverse opinion. I think I read it in this thread too. I think we'll have a new CBA and the lawsuit will be dropped but part of the terms will be the players namd in the suit will not be applicable to the "Tag".

[Bwana]

LMAO

[bigbucks24]

Will be interesting to see how it plays out. Guess the Donkey's better hope they can work out a long term contract with Miller before his rookie contract is up.

[milkman]

Manning is better than Cassel, no question.

But he is the most overrated QB ever.

How many SBs did he win with guys like Edgerin James, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark...etc?

The guy is a choker.

That team's only SB win was won on the strength of their running game and defense, and they advanced in spite of Manning's best effort to give games away.

I absolutely hate the idea of bringing in an older QB to a young ascending team.

You're just starting to loosen the lock to open a window, but it's going to slam shut before you actually have a chance to get it open.

It's what happened to the Chiefs in the 90s with Montana, and to the Vikings with Farvre, not to mention teh Cardinals with warner.

You find a young QB to grow with the team.

[philfree]

Manning is better than Cassel, no question.

But he is the most overrated QB ever.

How many SBs did he win with guys like Edgerin James, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark...etc?

The guy is a choker.

That team's only SB win was won on the strength of their running game and defense, and they advanced in spite of Manning's best effort to give games away.

I absolutely hate the idea of bringing in an older QB to a young ascending team.

You're just starting to loosen the lock to open a window, but it's going to slam shut before you actually have a chance to get it open.

It's what happened to the Chiefs in the 90s with Montana, and to the Vikings with Farvre, not to mention teh Cardinals with warner.

You find a young QB to grow with the team.

While I liked the Montana move this is a really good post.

[Easy 6]

Never gonna happen.


That being said, Manning in red and gold would be awesome.

100% of this.

Who the **** doesnt want Johnny Unitas 2.0 with atleast 3 good years left on their team? It would be akin to & even more meaningful than Reggie White going to GB, a huge challenge sign to the rest of the league.

*sips beer & dreams*

[milkman]

100% of this.

Who the **** doesnt want Johnny Unitas 2.0 with atleast 3 good years left on their team? It would be akin to & even more meaningful than Reggie White going to GB, a huge challenge sign to the rest of the league.

*sips beer & dreams*

Peyton Manning can't hold Johnny U's jock.

[Easy 6]

Peyton Manning can't hold Johnny U's jock.

JU has said repeatedly in interviews that the closest guy to him, modern day, is Manning.

I get the old skool sentiment, but c'mon...

[The_Doctor10]

Why would Manning leave Indy? I know loyalty is all but dead in pro sports, but the guy already has more money than he could ever spend. He is essentially his own OC, he is worshipped as a god in Indy, he's the reason they have that new stadium, he's won a Super Bowl with them and been to another one... Why does he want a max money deal anyway?

How about he takes less, say 3 years, 30M, 28 guaranteed, and allow his team to bring in more help so he can get another championship or two?

I can't believe the dude has such an inferiority complex towards Brady that he wants enough money to buy Tom and sell him at auction to an Arab sheik who will take his cherry.

[milkman]

JU has said repeatedly in interviews that the closest guy to him, modern day, is Manning.

I get the old skool sentiment, but c'mon...

In terms of talent, they are comparable.

But Johnny Unitas was one tough SOB, unafraid of holding the ball until the last second and taking the hit as he released it.

Manning, not so much.

The word "Pussy" comes to mind.

[Easy 6]

In terms of talent, they are comparable.

But Johnny Unitas was one tough SOB, unafraid of holding the ball until the last second and taking the hit as he released it.

Manning, not so much.

The word "Pussy" comes to mind.

I've honestly had my share of jeers for PM, but i can honestly say that pussy isnt one of them... how long has that guy been playing at an elite level again?

C'mon MM... if we, in some alternate reality, signed Manning, you'd have Super Bowl stains on your boxers right?

I would.

[ClevelandBronco]

Y'all would probably win as many rings with Manning as you did with Montana.

[kysirsoze]

In terms of talent, they are comparable.

But Johnny Unitas was one tough SOB, unafraid of holding the ball until the last second and taking the hit as he released it.

Manning, not so much.

The word "Pussy" comes to mind.

A pussy that never misses a game.

[Torpedo Jones]

PAT WHITE!

[Easy 6]

Y'all would probably win as many rings with Manning as you did with Montana.

All of that time spent hiking the mountains, has left you addled.

Comparing the Marty era to today... Birden, Dawson, some extra from The White Shadow? thats a non-starter.

[DeezNutz]

I would trade every fucking pick from now until 2018. /Hootie

[Easy 6]

I would trade every ****ing pick from now until 2018. /Hootie

In the earnest interest of football fantasyland playtime, a Planet specialty, what would you give to acquire him?

I'd give a same year first & second, possibly more... if you truly believe in the scouting deptartment to give you good building blocks elsewhere its an easy call.

Now... back to CASSEL!

[RealSNR]

Think about it, guys.

Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would be on the same team. Manning plays a few years and then passes the torch to Stanzi, who owns faces and wins 3 Super Bowls.

It's like some bizzaro sci-fi time travel movie about two embittered enemies in one universe. One man gets caught in a space anomaly, is transported back in time, and is living his life as an old man, with his enemy as just a boy. But instead of destroying him, he helps him and joins forces.

[DeezNutz]

In the earnest interest of football fantasyland playtime, a Planet specialty, what would you give to acquire him?

I'd give a same year first & second, possibly more... if you truly believe in the scouting deptartment to give you good building blocks elsewhere its an easy call.

Now... back to CASSEL!

First and second in the same year? Done. Yesterday. Manning is getting longer in the tooth, but he still has 3-4 great years left.

[L.A. Chieffan]

Lol why don't we just get Brady as backup while we're at it.

[L.A. Chieffan]

Maybe polamalu and Andre johnson are available

[Easy 6]

Lol why don't we just get Brady as backup while we're at it.

You need to be grab a seat, drink your juice & play Candyland along with everyone else...

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Somewhere, Hootie is masturbating furiously...

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

No way man, Cassel is leading this team to the Super Bowl in ELEVENTY BILLION YEARS when he develops!

[007]

who?

[milkman]

A pussy that never misses a game.

The primary reason he's a choker is because he doesn't like the contact, and when physical defenses apply pressure, he gets rid of teh ball early so as to avoid the hits.

[plbrdude]

Hey, I'd say the Montana trade was well worth it. Even without winning a SB, that team was epic.

epic is nothing without a super bowl

[LOCOChief]

The primary reason he's a choker is because he doesn't like the contact, and when physical defenses apply pressure, he gets rid of teh ball early so as to avoid the hits.,

Nobody want's their qb getting hit even if they get rid of the ball first. Peyton goes down and who's the back up?
PM a pussy?That's pretty rich coming from you of all people.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Manning is better than Cassel, no question.

But he is the most overrated QB ever.

How many SBs did he win with guys like Edgerin James, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark...etc?

The guy is a choker.

That team's only SB win was won on the strength of their running game and defense, and they advanced in spite of Manning's best effort to give games away.

I absolutely hate the idea of bringing in an older QB to a young ascending team.

You're just starting to loosen the lock to open a window, but it's going to slam shut before you actually have a chance to get it open.

It's what happened to the Chiefs in the 90s with Montana, and to the Vikings with Farvre, not to mention teh Cardinals with warner.

You find a young QB to grow with the team.



Actually that isn't what happened. What happened was we gave up a first rd pick that carl would have blown on an OL anyway, and montana got us closer to the SB with our last playoff win which was like 17 yrs ago.

He didn't set us back, he moved us forward. There hasn't been a QB on the chiefs roster come close to Lenny besides Montana in 30 years. Montana was uncontested and without a doubt the greatest free agent pickup this club has ever known. I would give anything to have that relevant of a QB again.

[milkman]

,

Nobody want's their qb getting hit even if they get rid of the ball first. Peyton goes down and who's the back up?
PM a pussy?That's pretty rich coming from you of all people.

Of course, no one wants their QB getting hit.

As a fan of the game who wants to see the best players playing, regardless of team, I wish that Kurt Warner had taken this tact more often.

However, when your passing game is predicated on timing, if you throw passes early to avoid contact, bad things can happen.

In the playoffs you have to step up your game.

To win, you have to make plays, which means, in Manning's case, he has to hold teh ball until the receivers have the time to get into their breaks.

Regular season, get rid of the ball, don't take the hit.

In the playoffs, show some stones.

Actually that isn't what happened. What happened was we gave up a first rd pick that carl would have blown on an OL anyway, and montana got us closer to the SB with our last playoff win which was like 17 yrs ago.

He didn't set us back, he moved us forward. There hasn't been a QB on the chiefs roster come close to Lenny besides Montana in 30 years. Montana was uncontested and without a doubt the greatest free agent pickup this club has ever known. I would give anything to have that relevant of a QB again.

I've said this over and over again.

Trading for Montana was a great idea, but you had to have a better plan for the future.

Montana was an aging, injury prone QB who only gave you two years, and couldn't complete the playoff season due to injury, something that was easily forseen.

Trading for Montana, and not having a quality backup who would be ready to take the reins when Montana was injured or retired was a moronic decision.

The Chiefs were a young ascending team, but as soon as Montana retired, the window slammed shut.

Oh, and Montana was not a free agent.

[Coogs]

If we add a vet slot receiver from say the list of Rice, Smith, Breaston, or Santana Moss, AND...

Give Manning the free reign to run the offense just as he does for the Colts, then yes I would do this in a heartbeat.

An offense that lines up with Baldwin on the left side, Bowe on the right side, one of those 4 in the slot, Moeaki at the TE, Charles at the RB, and Manning calling the plays at the LOS!

I'm in!

[RedThat]

I'd trade two first rounders for Peyton Manning in a ****ing heartbeat. I wouldn't even think twice about it.

I think he will play at least another 3 years, if not that, possibly more. But landing him pretty much increases our chances of contending or winning the superbowl. Without a question.

I've been reading some points on this thread and have to agree with some of the takes here. Just think of how many explosive weapons we have on offense already in Charles, Bowe, Baldwin, Moeaki, now add Manning to that mix and he is the perfect icing on the cake. Can you imagine how ****ing good our offense would be with him?

Think about how the current weapons we have on offense makes Cassel better. But instead, Manning is a great QB as it is. So adding him elevates the play of everyone else around him. Which is what great QB's do. We don't have to worry about the weapons we have on offense to make him better. Its complete vice versa with him in there. Plus, he makes up for any deficiencies we currently have on offense.

He makes up for a mediocre offensive line. In Indy, his Olines were average at times and they look better with him under center. He makes up for the most important thing that we don't have right now, and that is, lack of pass protection.. His quick release and reads along with his peripheral vision is so outstanding it makes him so hard to sack. That is one way we can throw the lack of pass protection problem out the window. He has the ability to read and disect a defense very well and as a result creates mismatches when the plays against him are good enough to stop him. Another way to work around lack of pass protection. He automatically eliminates the problem our current QB has, and that is, holding onto the ball too long, and staring down receivers.

He when wins the chess games most of the time against some of the best D-coordinators in the league. He is like a ****ing coach out there. This guy is the smartest player in the league imo.

He makes up for having a sh*tty OC in Bill Muir because he has the ability to create mismatches and call plays himself. Manning adds a few elements on our team that we don't have. First off, a great player at QB, a coach, and a leader. The guy is the ultimate conductor of an offense. Which is what most QBs should be. He pretty much defines the position. And I don't want to hear anyone talk about his age. Do you know how durable this guy is? He barely misses games and hardly gets touched. That makes a difference in him being able to play a lot longer.

We also have a pretty good defense to compliment him as well. Teams would fear playing against us with him under center. He pretty much changes the overall gameplanning and approach to how teams would play against us. Which is what you desire as a fan. But unfortunately, on a sad note, this move doesn't happen. Its good to dream, but no way does he leave Indy. He is just too valuable for them to let him go. So I agree with what some are saying there.

The only downfall I could see with us having Manning, would be, Haley. Do you think Haley's ego is wide enough to prevent Manning from calling his own plays? I'd wonder.

[Lex Luthor]

If I recall correctly, "the greatest quarterback of all time" threw a horrible interception to choke away the Super Bowl not long ago. And he is now 35 years old.

The only ring Manning ever won was because his defense and running game carried him. He would never win a Super Bowl as a Chief.

Trading away a bunch of high draft choices for him would be the height of stupidity. If you could trade those draft choices for a guy still in his prime like Philip Rivers or Aaron Rodgers, then it would be a no-brainer. I'd even do it for guys like Tom Brady and Drew Brees, because at least they are a few years younger than Manning. But to trade away THREE high draft picks for a 35 year old quarterback who almost always chokes in the postseason would be ludicrous.

If Manning were 30 years old it would be a different story. But he's not.

[Coogs]

I'd trade two first rounders for Peyton Manning in a ****ing heartbeat. I wouldn't even think twice about it.

I think he will play at least another 3 years, if not that, possibly more. But landing him pretty much increases our chances of contending or winning the superbowl. Without a question.

I've been reading some points on this thread and have to agree with some of the takes here. Just think of how many explosive weapons we have on offense already in Charles, Bowe, Baldwin, Moeaki, now add Manning to that mix and he is the perfect icing on the cake. Can you imagine how ****ing good our offense would be with him?

Think about how the current weapons we have on offense makes Cassel better. But instead, Manning is a great QB as it is. So adding him elevates the play of everyone else around him. Which is what great QB's do. We don't have to worry about the weapons we have on offense to make him better. Its complete vice versa with him in there. Plus, he makes up for any deficiencies we currently have on offense.

He makes up for a mediocre offensive line. In Indy, his Olines were average at times and they look better with him under center. He makes up for the most important thing that we don't have right now, and that is, lack of pass protection.. His quick release and reads along with his peripheral vision is so outstanding it makes him so hard to sack. That is one way we can throw the lack of pass protection problem out the window. He has the ability to read and disect a defense very well and as a result creates mismatches when the plays against him are good enough to stop him. Another way to work around lack of pass protection. He automatically eliminates the problem our current QB has, and that is, holding onto the ball too long, and staring down receivers.

He when wins the chess games most of the time against some of the best D-coordinators in the league. He is like a ****ing coach out there. This guy is the smartest player in the league imo.

He makes up for having a sh*tty OC in Bill Muir because he has the ability to create mismatches and call plays himself. Manning adds a few elements on our team that we don't have. First off, a great player at QB, a coach, and a leader. The guy is the ultimate conductor of an offense. Which is what most QBs should be. He pretty much defines the position. And I don't want to hear anyone talk about his age. Do you know how durable this guy is? He barely misses games and hardly gets touched. That makes a difference in him being able to play a lot longer.

We also have a pretty good defense to compliment him as well. Teams would fear playing against us with him under center. He pretty much changes the overall gameplanning and approach to how teams would play against us. Which is what you desire as a fan. But unfortunately, on a sad note, this move doesn't happen. Its good to dream, but no way does he leave Indy. He is just too valuable for them to let him go. So I agree with what some are saying there.

The only downfall I could see with us having Manning, would be, Haley. Do you think Haley's ego is wide enough to prevent Manning from calling his own plays? I'd wonder.

I agree with this whole post! I don't see it happening either, but, as the thread title says... "If the unthinkable happens"... I would be all over this. Expecially if Haley would step back and let Manning call the plays at the LOS.

[milkman]

If I recall correctly, "the greatest quarterback of all time" threw a horrible interception to choke away the Super Bowl not long ago. And he is now 35 years old.

The only ring Manning ever won was because his defense and running game carried him. He would never win a Super Bowl as a Chief.

Trading away a bunch of high draft choices for him would be the height of stupidity. If you could trade those draft choices for a guy still in his prime like Philip Rivers or Aaron Rodgers, then it would be a no-brainer. I'd even do it for guys like Tom Brady and Drew Brees, because at least they are a few years younger than Manning. But to trade away THREE high draft picks for a 35 year old quarterback who almost always chokes in the postseason would be ludicrous.

If Manning were 30 years old it would be a different story. But he's not.

This is what I'm saying.

[RedThat]

I believe that Manning has never had great teams around him. You place this guy on a an already average team(which is what the Colts are imo w/o him), that team changes from average to good. You place this guy on an already good team, and that team changes good to great.

Shall we look at this thing a lot more clearly? If you take Manning away from the Colts, just what would there record be like? 7-9, 8-8? Seriously. Or, they'd probably be worse and suck without him.

*Just because he is 35 years old, what does that mean? Yes, he is old, and getting up there in age, but that factor alone, still doesn't take away the fact that you are getting the smartest player in the league who can take a 10-6 team to an improved 13-3 or 14-2 record with some playoff victories on the horizon and a possible superbowl trophy.

[Coogs]

If I recall correctly, "the greatest quarterback of all time" threw a horrible interception to choke away the Super Bowl not long ago. And he is now 35 years old.

The only ring Manning ever won was because his defense and running game carried him. He would never win a Super Bowl as a Chief.

Trading away a bunch of high draft choices for him would be the height of stupidity. If you could trade those draft choices for a guy still in his prime like Philip Rivers or Aaron Rodgers, then it would be a no-brainer. I'd even do it for guys like Tom Brady and Drew Brees, because at least they are a few years younger than Manning. But to trade away THREE high draft picks for a 35 year old quarterback who almost always chokes in the postseason would be ludicrous.

If Manning were 30 years old it would be a different story. But he's not.

We have a running game, We have a pretty fair defense shaping up. For a legit 3 to 4 year run at the Super Bowl, it would be a no brainer for me to do the deal.

[milkman]

I agree with this whole post! I don't see it happening either, but, as the thread title says... "If the unthinkable happens"... I would be all over this. Expecially if Haley would step back and let Manning call the plays at the LOS.

It's all well and good, except for a couple major points.

There's this whole "Manning makes the O-Line look better" bullshit.

The Colts O-Line, until last season, has always been a good unit through most of Manning's career.

Underrated because of Manning, but the fact is, they have been among the best in pass protect for years.

Last season early in the season, the Colts added a couple of young O-Linemen who struggled, and as a result, Manning struggled.

His play improved as the play of those two interior linemen's improved.

There is some truth to the argument that Manning makes the line look better, but not nearly as much as most try to portray it.

He wins the chess match, not because he's all that great or so much smarter than opposing DCs, but because the rules have been skewed so much in favor of teh passing game, especially since he came in the league.

When he goes up against good defenses with good DCs in the playoffs, he chokes.

He's the league's golden boy, and the league has adjusted and added emphasis to rules simply to enhance his ability to perform, and he still choked away a SB.

[RedThat]

We have a running game, We have a pretty fair defense shaping up. For a legit 3 to 4 year run at the Super Bowl, it would be a no brainer for me to do the deal.

Exactly. And we have some pretty good weapons in the passing game. Plus, good special teams and coaching. This team would be ****ing great with him. I really fail to see how some people would be opposed to the idea.

[Coogs]

It's all well and good, except for a couple major points.

There's this whole "Manning maked the O-Line look better" bullshit.

The Colts O-Line, until last season, has always been a good unit through most of Manning's career.

Underrated because of Manning, but the fact is, they have been among the best in pass protect for years.

Last season early in the season, the Colts added a couple of young O-Linemen who struggled, and as a result, Manning struggled.

His play improved as the play of those two interior linemen's improved.

There is some truth to the argument that Manning makes the line look better, but not nearly as much as most try to portray it.

He wins the chess match, not because he's all that great or so much smarter than opposing DCs, but because the rules have been skewed so much in favor of teh passing game, especially since he came in the league.

When he goes up against good defenses with good DCs in the playoffs, he chokes.

He's the league's golden boy, and the league has adjusted and added emphasis to rules simply to enhance his ability to perform, and he still choked away a SB.

They also trotted out a set of WR's last year that most people would be hard pressed to even recognize their names before the season.

Yes he is 35.

This team has a lot of pieces in place. Not every single pice, but a lot of pieces none the less.

If my options are to go with Cassel for the next 3 years or Peyton Manning... I'm going Manning.

And again, this is "If the Unthinkable happens".

[Lex Luthor]

*Just because he is 35 years old, what does that mean?
43 different quarterbacks have won the Super Bowl. Guess how many of them changed teams at the age of the 35 and THEN won a Super Bowl?

Hint: The answer is ZERO.

Only 4 quarterbacks as old as 35 have EVER won a Super Bowl (Unitas, Staubach, Plunkett and Elway), and they had all been with their teams for at least 5 years when they won the Super Bowl at this advanced age.

History would not be on the Chiefs side if they decided to do this.

[Coogs]

Plus, there are several teams needing a QB. If we would aquire Manning, The Titans, Cards, Redskins to name 3 might be willing to give at lest one of those picks back to get Cassel. :shrug:

[milkman]

Exactly. And we have some pretty good weapons in the passing game. Plus, good special teams and coaching. This team would be ****ing great with him. I really fail to see how some people would be opposed to the idea.

I think I've outlined my reasons pretty clearly.

The Colts earlier in Manning's career were a far better taem than these Chiefs are, and he still has managed only one SB win, and he was carried to that.

Aaron Rogers led his Pack to the SB win last year with no run game and one of teh worst O-Lines in the league.

Manning with a much better O-Line and running game around him through much of his career, on a team that, on paper, has been one of the 3 or 4 best for most of his career, has choked away opportunity after opportunity.

[Coogs]

43 different quarterbacks have won the Super Bowl. Guess how many of them changed teams at the age of the 35 and THEN won a Super Bowl?

Hint: The answer is ZERO.

Only 4 quarterbacks as old as 35 have EVER won a Super Bowl (Unitas, Staubach, Plunkett and Elway), and they had all been with their teams for at least 5 years when they won the Super Bowl at this advanced age.

History would not be on the Chiefs side if they decided to do this.

While true, 35 now vs 35 several years ago... two different animals.

[milkman]

They also trotted out a set of WR's last year that most people would be hard pressed to even recognize their names before the season.

That might actually mean something if we were simply talking about last year.

We, however, are talking about a career.

[Lex Luthor]

While true, 35 now vs 35 several years ago... two different animals.
Keep telling yourself that.

[Coogs]

I think I've outlined my reasons pretty clearly.

The Colts earlier in Manning's career were a far better taem than these Chiefs are, and he still has managed only one SB win, and he was carried to that.

Aaron Rogers led his Pack to the SB win last year with no run game and one of teh worst O-Lines in the league.

Manning with a much better O-Line and running game around him through much of his career, on a team that, on paper, has been one of the 3 or 4 best for most of his career, has choked away opportunity after opportunity.

If Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning are both available, I go Rodgers too. If just Manning hits the market... I'd be all over it.

[Coogs]

That might actually mean something if we were simply talking about last year.

We, however, are talking about a career.

I was referring to this part...

Last season early in the season, the Colts added a couple of young O-Linemen who struggled, and as a result, Manning struggled.

Guess I should have only quoted that part the first time. My fault.

[Coogs]

Keep telling yourself that.

You don't think the training now days is any different that several years ago?

[milkman]

If Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning are both available, I go Rodgers too. If just Manning hits the market... I'd be all over it.

Those guys that "nobody ever heard of" were a couple of guys that were coveted by people who follow the college game and draft.

But what you are suggesting is that Manning actually needs talent and experience around him to perform at the level you've come to expect.

That's fucking amazing, considering how everyone always tells us how Manning is the greatest QB ever and makes everyone around him better, and that the Colts can't win without Manning.

There is actually some truth to that, but not because the team around him is so bad, but because the backup QB situation is so bad, and the coaching on that team is, and has been, pathetic for years.

But you give that team a solid backup QB and a real coach, and they wouldn't be nearly as fucked witout Manning.

[Coogs]

If Manning does become available, and these are our realistic options for the near future...

1. Ride it out with Cassel
2. Trade a 2012 1st round pick for Kevin Kolb
3. Pick up Vince Young... for nothing? :shrug:
4. Trade at least a 2012 1st round pick for Manning

OR

5. Ride it out with Cassel this season, and realize in 2012 that we have to spend a 1st round pick on a QB in the draft for a QB most likely not named Andrew Luck.


... I like option 4 the best.

[Spott]

Well having Manning for 3-5 would five years would suck a hell of a lot less than watching Cassel flounder around here for another few years before we finally dump him. Manning isn't going anywhere though so it's a moot point.

[Coogs]

Those guys that "nobody ever heard of" were a couple of guys that were coveted by people who follow the college game and draft.

I follow college football. Mount Union games are not shown in Kansas much though, and Garcon was a 6th rounder. Collie was a late 4th rounder out of BYU. Got to admit, I don't watch BYU much either. And Smith was an undrafted FA out of Michigan State.

Coveted... :shrug:

[Coogs]

Well having Manning for 3-5 would five years would suck a hell of a lot less than watching Cassel flounder around here for another few years before we finally dump him. Manning isn't going anywhere though so it's a moot point.

The thread title says... "Let's say the unthinkable happens."

Just playing along.

[RedThat]

It's all well and good, except for a couple major points.

There's this whole "Manning makes the O-Line look better" bullshit.

The Colts O-Line, until last season, has always been a good unit through most of Manning's career.

Underrated because of Manning, but the fact is, they have been among the best in pass protect for years.

Okay maybe my comment on him making Olines better was a bit of a stretch because the Colts did have some really good players along the Oline over the years. In fact, I think they had one of the better units in the league. They simply had the guys in Tarik Glenn, Jeff Saturday, Rick Demulling, Ryan Diem, etc...But then Glenn retired, Demulling left for FA, Ryan Diem was forced to move out of his natural position from RG to right tackle, and then all of a sudden the Oline changed. They had to rely on the draft and young players to come on in. And what once was a solid, cohesive unit had to be rebuilt again thorugh draft and FA. But they did find some guys in Jake Scott, Ryan Lilja, and Tony Ugoh. I give Indy some credit. But those guys were not as effective as the previous units they once had.

Regardless, one has to admit though, when a QB changes plays and calls audibles at the LOS, all to create mismatches, that automatically creates an advantage for the offense. NOBODY in this league does it better than Peyton. Thats part of the reason why I think he is the smartest player. In fact, I think that quality alone makes the Oline's job ALOT easier, and paves way for an opportunity for someone on offense to make a play. Garcon and Collie aren't the greatest receivers and Addai isn't a great RB, they are good, but they are better because its a lot easier for them to make plays when your QB changes plays and creates all kinds of room and openings for you.


Last season early in the season, the Colts added a couple of young O-Linemen who struggled, and as a result, Manning struggled.

His play improved as the play of those two interior linemen's improved.

Part of the reason why I think the young Olinemen struggled was because they were rookies. Thats the simplest thing I could think of. It takes time for rookies to come in and learn the offense and adjust along the way. but who better to teach them than Manning? A guy who is an offensive mastermind as it is. A great leader, teacher, and conductor of an offense. Knows his sh*t inside and out, and teaches it better than anyone. thats part of the reason why I think those guys improved and got better along the way.



There is some truth to the argument that Manning makes the line look better, but not nearly as much as most try to portray it.

Well yeah. His qualities as a quarterback are unique and pretty much better than anyone else. He can make quick and snap decisions on the fly which only allows the Oline to block for a mere 2 seconds and doesnt give the defense enough time to react or defend against the play. Add a quick release to that and the Oline are never at fault or have to worry about him getting sacked. His tunnel vision is the BEST in the game imo. If you have a quarterback that is a master at all that, then you as a offensive lineman have it easy. All you have to do is make sure you know the plays pretty well, and when he is in there calling the plays and making adjustments make sure you are on the same page as he is.Just a matter of synchronization. Thats all I think it is when it comes to rookies struggling their first time playing with Peyton. Its because they are out of synch.


He wins the chess match, not because he's all that great or so much smarter than opposing DCs, but because the rules have been skewed so much in favor of teh passing game, especially since he came in the league.

I think part of that is true. I believe he is at much of an advantage because of the new rules. But I do think he has the ability to outsmarten coaches. To a certain degree. But then, it also depends which coaches he is going up against? Belicheck, and Crennel? we all know he failed against them.


When he goes up against good defenses with good DCs in the playoffs, he chokes.

Here's the thing though, Yes, he choked in the playoffs several times, but, he played the Pats. That team was a dynasty itself. And at the time he lost to them, the new rules weren't enforced or implemented. The only real chance the Pats had at stopping manning was to hold his receivers 5 yards beyond the LOS which is what they did a majority of the time. that was a big part of their game plan. thats why that new rule was enforced afterwards because guys like Manning and the Colts would complain that their receivers were being held. But I also believe that no team in the league were masters at disguising the blitz than the Patriots. The real reason why they beat him was because their blitz, and coverage packages were so complex that they would
confuse the sh*t out of the guy. That defense got into his head pretty good. And nobody played him better than the Pats. But I don't think anyone could argue because they were the best team in the league at the time with a heck of a coaching staff. If it weren't for New England, I don't see anybody stopping him. They are the reason why he choked. But they weren't unbelievably good at the time. so is it fair to say he choked?


He's the league's golden boy, and the league has adjusted and added emphasis to rules simply to enhance his ability to perform, and he still choked away a SB.

I agree, the league LOVES him. and will make adjustments to favor him. He is the golden boy. He is the guy that the league depends on to make the game more exciting. But hey, if the league makes adjustments for him, and that guy is on our team and that reflects on our team getting better, Im for it.

*Overall though, you do make some really good points. I agree with some of your takes.

[MoreLemonPledge]

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/louisck-mutlipanes-13.gif

[milkman]

San Diego, Pittsburgh, New York Jets, and his biggest choke job, The Saints.

It wasn't just the Pats he was choking aginst.

[Lex Luthor]

San Diego, Pittsburgh, New York Jets, and his biggest choke job, The Saints.

It wasn't just the Pats he was choking aginst.
If Peyton Manning choked like that as a Chief, the people on Chiefsplanet who want to bring him here now would want to lynch him instead. But since he plays for some other team, he is THE ANSWER.

[GloryDayz]

It's worth a try! Bring him in for a workout and lets see if our WRs don't seem to just catch more balls.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Plus, there are several teams needing a QB. If we would aquire Manning, The Titans, Cards, Redskins to name 3 might be willing to give at lest one of those picks back to get Cassel. :shrug:

We are teh stuck with teh suck, much to Lemon Pledge's delight:

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/louisck-mutlipanes-13.gif

Easily done. Let me just bop on over to locker #7. There's a WHOLE BIG bag o' dicks taking up valuable real estate at this time.

Oh well, at least we have a nice "Timex QB" who can take the piss-pounding while we finish assembling the rest of the team before eventually replacing him, yes.

Sigh...what a happy day that will be.

[KCTitus]

The OP quote is too funny...the Naptown'Chief'...knows so much about the colts that he proffers this potential.

Nap has been and always will be a Colts fan.

[Coogs]

If Peyton Manning choked like that as a Chief, the people on Chiefsplanet who want to bring him here now would want to lynch him instead. But since he plays for some other team, he is THE ANSWER.

I have also seen him engineer some amazing comeback wins. He may not always win, but with him behind center, you can never shut the TV off early.

[milkman]

I have also seen him engineer some amazing comeback wins. He may not always win, but with him behind center, you can never shut the TV off early.

Amazing comeback wins in the regular season are great and contribute to an overall winning culture and getting your team to the playoffs.

But how many comeback wins has he engineered in the playoffs?

1?

His record as a starter in the playoffs is at or below .500.

[Coogs]

Amazing comeback wins in the regular season are great and contribute to an overall winning culture and getting your team to the playoffs.

But how many comeback wins has he engineered in the playoffs?

1?

His record as a starter in the playoffs is at or below .500.

So is our guy's. I'd take Manning over Cassel for the next 3-4 years. It's just a personal choice. It's not going to happen, but it is the off-season. :shrug:

[milkman]

Amazing comeback wins in the regular season are great and contribute to an overall winning culture and getting your team to the playoffs.

But how many comeback wins has he engineered in the playoffs?

1?

His record as a starter in the playoffs is at or below .500.

In fact, looking at the Colts playoff resume with Manning at QB, the Colts are 9-10 overall, and in 19 games played, they've only won two games that can be considered close games.

One of those was the classic no punt game against the Chiefs.

The other was when the Colts, and Manning finally got over the Patriot hurdle, the only game that it can be said that he engineered a comeback win in the playoffs, after the Pats defense was already well on their way to declining.

[milkman]

So is our guy's. I'd take Manning over Cassel for the next 3-4 years. It's just a personal choice. It's not going to happen, but it is the off-season. :shrug:

I'll take Manning over Cassel, also.

But that isn't my argument.

My argument is that I have no desire to bring in an aging vet to stop gap the position, unless we also draft a young stud to groom.

I was, and always have been a big fan of Joe Montana, but I absolutely hated bringing him in without also preparing for the future.

Don't stop gap the position without a plan for the future, but in Manning's case, don't expect him to substantially increase our chances to win a SB, because the fact is, his history in the playoffs is that he chokes.

In the Montana scenario, I didn't expect to win a SB, or even advance, because I never expected to get through an entire season.

He almost proved me wrong.

Emphasize "almost".

[Okie_Apparition]

Manning would fill the gold section, but his salary would be too great. Off to the Jets to sell some PSLs..

[Coogs]

I understand what you are saying, but I would still do it if the opportunity presented itself. We have assembeled a pretty fair team at this point. Not all the way there yet, but getting closer all of the time.

Who you going to put there the next 3-4 years?

Matt Cassel?
Andrew Luck?
Tony Romo?
Alex Smith?
Brady Quinn?
Vince Young?
Ryan Fitzpatrick?

Keep in mind that at the end of that 3-4 years that Charles, Hali, Flowers, DJ, Dorsey and the likes will be nearing the end of their careers as well.

[milkman]

I understand what you are saying, but I would still do it if the opportunity presented itself. We have assembeled a pretty fair team at this point. Not all the way there yet, but getting closer all of the time.

Who you going to put there the next 3-4 years?

Matt Cassel?
Andrew Luck?
Tony Romo?
Alex Smith?
Brady Quinn?
Vince Young?
Ryan Fitzpatrick?

Keep in mind that at the end of that 3-4 years that Charles, Hali, Flowers, DJ, Dorsey and the likes will be nearing the end of their careers as well.

Hali, Flowers, and Dorsey will more than likely, barring injury, be in the league for another 6-8 years.

The only question becomes, will they still be Chiefs?

[Coogs]

Hali, Flowers, and Dorsey will more than likely, barring injury, be in the league for another 6-8 years.

The only question becomes, will they still be Chiefs?

Even if they are in the league another 6-8 years, that is still nearing the end, not entering their prime. They are entering their prime now.

10 times out of 10 I am for putting Peyton Manning back there as their QB, as I believe he presents the best chance for winning a Super Bowl given the options that are available.

Next best option for me would be Andrew Luck, but that seems very unlikely.

[milkman]

Even if they are in the league another 6-8 years, that is still nearing the end, not entering their prime. They are entering their prime now.

10 times out of 10 I am for putting Peyton Manning back there as their QB, as I believe he presents the best chance for winning a Super Bowl given the options that are available.

Next best option for me would be Andrew Luck, but that seems very unlikely.

Actually, Flowers and Dorsey, along with Carr and Moeaki, among others will just be hitting their primes in about 3 years.

Guys like Asomaoh, Hudson, Baldwin and Houston, if they pan out will be following shortly therafter, so the real window starts opening in a couple of years, and should be open, with a QB, for 6-8 years after that.

[Coogs]

Actually, Flowers and Dorsey, along with Carr and Moeaki, among others will just be hitting their primes in about 3 years.

Guys like Asomaoh, Hudson, Baldwin and Houston, if they pan out will be following shortly therafter, so the real window starts opening in a couple of years, and should be open, with a QB, for 6-8 years after that.

OK, so who is your QB for the next 3-4 years?

[ChiefsCountry]

Actually, Flowers and Dorsey, along with Carr and Moeaki, among others will just be hitting their primes in about 3 years.

Guys like Asomaoh, Hudson, Baldwin and Houston, if they pan out will be following shortly therafter, so the real window starts opening in a couple of years, and should be open, with a QB, for 6-8 years after that.

Which is why alot of us argued for drafting a QB in 2009. Sanchez or Freeman would be hitting their prime at the same time along with the other players giving us a great window of opportunity for many years.

[boogblaster]

luv to have him .. dont know if we could protect him ....

[Coogs]

OK, so who is your QB for the next 3-4 years?

If we are going to move multiple picks to get a QB for the forseeable future my preferred order is this.

1. Andrew Luck
2. Peyton Manning (only because of the thread header)

Don't see any other options being available.

[ForeverChiefs58]

If I am going to go with the pipe dream of the unthinkable happens, I am going with Tom fucking Brady and the whole Larry Fitz/Andre Johnson dream. Maybe throw in Michael Turner and a DeMarcus Ware or someone else on D to finish it. Now, we're dreaming in style boys.

[milkman]

OK, so who is your QB for the next 3-4 years?

I can't answer that.

Depending how the season plays out, if we have a chance to make a run at Matt Barkley in the next draft, I make that run.

If not, there are a couple of young backups (Matt Flynn and Stephen MaGee) that I think have potential, and would make an effort to trade for or sign.

As I said, I would take Manning over Cassel, but I want a future plan in place, because Manning will be coming to the end of his career when many of these guys we've drafted over the last couple of seasons will becoming into their primes.

[milkman]

If we are going to move multiple picks to get a QB for the forseeable future my preferred order is this.

1. Andrew Luck
2. Peyton Manning (only because of the thread header)

Don't see any other options being available.

The only reason Luck isn't on my radar is the near certainty that we won't have any chance to get him.

[ForeverChiefs58]

The "unthinkable" dream would actually be that Matt Freaking Cassel really turns it around and has a HOF carreer in KC.
**Just saying that outloud was like therapy.

[Coogs]

I can't answer that.

Depending how the season plays out, if we have a chance to make a run at Matt Barkley in the next draft, I make that run.

If not, there are a couple of young backups (Matt Flynn and Stephen MaGee) that I think have potential, and would make an effort to trade for or sign.

As I said, I would take Manning over Cassel, but I want a future plan in place, because Manning will be coming to the end of his career when many of these guys we've drafted over the last couple of seasons will becoming into their primes.

Fair enough. Especially your last paragraph.

[Coogs]

The only reason Luck isn't on my radar is the near certainty that we won't have any chance to get him.

Agreed. Him and all the preferred options like Rodgers, Ryan, Rivers, etc. just don't seem likely at all.

[MahiMike]

So the question is.....would you trade 3 draft picks away for a "chance" to win the Superbowl for the next 2-3 years.



Yes

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Which is why alot of us argued for drafting a QB in 2009. Sanchez or Freeman would be hitting their prime at the same time along with the other players giving us a great window of opportunity for many years.

Sigh....

What he said.

[L.A. Chieffan]

cassel is all we need this talk of peyton is laughable mang

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

cassel is all we need this talk of peyton is laughable mang

Cassel's agent?

[MoreLemonPledge]

Which is why alot of us argued for drafting a QB in 2009. Sanchez or Freeman would be hitting their prime at the same time along with the other players giving us a great window of opportunity for many years.

Dude, Sanchez is, was, and always will be a mediocre QB who is not discernibly better than Cassel. I thought this argument was over...

[KCBOSS1]

It always cracks me up when guys refuse to trade draft picks for a proven pro bowler. This guy is a life-long probowler that has 3 more probowl years at least available. What could you possibly be hoping for in a 1st round pick that would give you a proven, highest level performance ability at the NFL level? There's a lack of reason here. Absolutely, you get him. It's not going to happen. But this is more applicable to a Fitzgerald that is still young. You are hoping for a probowler in the 1st round. This guy is a perennial probowler. When there were talks about him and we were talking about giving high trade picks up, guys were throwing a fit on here. I don't get it.

[notorious]

The last time this team won a playoff game Montana was the QB.


I am going to stick my head in the oven now.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Dude, Sanchez is, was, and always will be a mediocre QB who is not discernibly better than Cassel. I thought this argument was over...

And this is why when the argument is happening, one must actually PAY ATTENTION to the details of said argument, yes.