Arrowhead Pride

If I Had To Guess

He’ll be in Arizona or New York next season.

So he won't come here because of a OC

But he’ll go to Arizona where they have 5 pylons for an offensive line?

NY has no way to pay him, I doubt Peyton would want to take his brother's thunder in NY anyway

AZ, maybe…but their owner is every bit as tight as Clark. I think Washington is the most likely because Snyder has the room under the cap & won’t hesitate to spend it.

I think KC would be right up there, but as you’ve alluded to it’s probably unlikely that Pioli will pursue him.

Peyton + Shanahan would be like oil and water

No way Ratface gives Peyton free reign in his offense.

Plus, I think Manning will want to go to a team that's ready to win right away.

The Redskins with (a fully healthy) Manning are a 10 or 11 win team, but the 49ers or even (dare I say) the Chiefs are legit conference contenders, possibly even favorites.

MtHammer - February 4, 2012 reply

I'll take a wild hare and say Peyton goes to Denver.

He’s the ONE guy Elway could sign to replace Jesus Boy – and the fans wouldn’t have Elway hanging from a telephone pole.

LocoLoboChico - February 4, 2012 reply

And

“Going for broke” has never been a Pioli thing. You’re talking about a guy who doesn’t even sign top free agents at positions of critical need.

this means nothing.

None of mannings coordinators posted a top 20 offfense without manning. He is a top 10 offense alone.

just a guy - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

when healthy and able to throw ...

something he hasn’t done in a year

Its well known

That he has been throwing every day. And the doctors say he is healthy

Big_Chief - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

it's well known he isn't back to where he was

a lot of people “throw every day” … he’s still not ready to go in a football game with the strength and accuracy he used to have

Fortunately, they don't play for a couple weeks or so.

true dat

so do we give him 20 Mil for a few years before knowing if he can play at his old level?

I don't know what he'll cost.

And I’m guessing they’ll have their own doctors look at him before making that determination.

He won't be healthy for long behind our o-line.

That’s enuff ritch thar for Peyton watch film on and say: "Ohhhh … hell NO!

LocoLoboChico - February 4, 2012 reply

Kyle Orton

1 sack in 3 games. It’s not all about the oline.

thank you

chiefnation - February 5, 2012 via mobile reply

He's also been with the Browns and the Dolphins

Those franchises don’t exactly have the creme de la creme of talent on their roster, or their scouting for that matter

TonyMatthias - February 4, 2012 reply

and were going to hire a qb that will make us a top 5 offense

peyton manning

of course KC should go after him

But, I doubt we get him.

stagdsp - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

Like to see it

Not gonna get my hopes up though, for the reasons others mention.

I’d like to add that hiring Peyton Manning helps us in developing a younger QB also.

when has Manning ever helped develop anyone?

not sure

but I’m also not sure that he ever had a quality young back-up to help develop — Jim Sorgi & Curtis Painter were not exactly rookies with big upsides.

Knew this would come up. Personally, I can’t help but think that studying behind a HOF QB wouldn’t help. Of course, I could be wrong too.

I Don't Think Manning Is A Cancer To His Backups Like Favre Was

And I don’t think their backups were that talented. But it’s fair to point out that expectations of Manning’s coaching ability are based more on wishful projection than any results.

I can agree with that

I think Stanzi (or any other mid-round QB with upside) could develop by watching Manning. Also, I think as QBs get older, they recognize the need for more selfless behaviors, at least I like to hope so. Sitting out a full season with an injury had to be pretty humbling.

Of course, I could be wrong too.

I Never Saw Manning As Selfish, Even Before

And most great players who fail as coaches don’t do so because they’re selfish. In fact, there are plenty of successful coaches who are incredibly selfish people. Most of the time they fail because they don’t always understand that not everyone possesses the same ability level that they had and they either don’t have the patience to learn to work around that or the ability to coach up lesser talent.

Manning seems like he might be a good coach someday, but you’ll never know for sure until he tries his hand at it.

For My Opinion

I think he’d probably be okay. Seems like he has a temperament suited for coaching. But there are a lot of great players who just aren’t good coaches and can’t develop talent, in all sports. So I tend to be neutral on Manning’s benefits as a player-coach.

Such

A manning hater. It shows in your comments

Big_Chief - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

hater? not at all ...

he’s one of the best QB’s ever, period

more respect for the man and what he’s done than you can imagine, but I don’t see him as the “franchise savior” coming off 3 neck surgeries and a dead arm … nor do I see him as a guy who will mentor Stanzi or anyone else: he wants and gets all first team reps in practices, has for years … unless your idea of “develop a young QB” is to say “here, watch what I do and then you do it in 3 years when I retire”

wait....

you mean that wouldn’t work, someone just watching him, I agree I have never seen anything that shows he would be willing to mentor his replacement

banshee_01 - February 4, 2012 reply

Andrew Luck!

DrDC - February 4, 2012 reply

this is so hilariously insane ... give Manning $20 Mil and then some, lock him up NOW ... and if he can't throw? so what, we weren't going to actually use that money anyway, right?

None of this should even remotely dissuade the Chiefs from going after Manning quickly and aggressively.

because a broken Manning without an OLine and Bowe and a defense without Carr and a NT and … yeah, just get a Manning who still hasn’t proven he can throw better than Joel Thorman and ALL our problems will be solved instantly!

damn, did I forget the sarcasm font AGAIN?

Yeah ups you're right

Signing a Hall of Fame qb would be detrimental to our overachieving organization…. on the other hand Decastro (ya know that guard at Stanford who hasn’t played in the NFL yet) would be our savior superbowl for sure….

Now THAT is how you forget sarcasm font!!! Ha no hard feelings.

Tmac1166 - February 4, 2012 reply

Only QB's bust in the 1st rd.

Not anybody else. ;=)

LocoLoboChico - February 4, 2012 reply

Not sure I understand

why this has to be a choice between Manning & Bowe/Carr. Seems to be that we could lock up all 3 with some creative financing…

Not to mention

The fact that if this keeps lingering and we were to somehow sign Peyton (not saying we will i HIGHLY doubt it) BUT IF we did I would bet that actually makes signing Bowe and Carr easier due to the fact that 1. we show real interested in winning and 2. who wouldn’t want to play WR especially for a Hall of Famer at QB?

Tmac1166 - February 4, 2012 reply

no way we could sign all 3

Manning will make $20mil/year where ever he goes, if I had to guess and Bowe will want damn near #1WR money and Carr will want damn near #1CB money, no way we pay all 3

banshee_01 - February 4, 2012 reply

I just don't buy this

If Philly can creatively finance the folks they have on their roster, we can do it too.

well they had guys who were willing to move things around in order to play for them

If we get into the manning circus someone else is gonna step in and snatch Bowe and Carr . I would not at all be surprised if the Bears went hard after both.

yes but

the players are going to have to want to structure their contracts in a way to make that happen, and seeing how Bowe and Carr are both coming off their rookie contracts they are going to want to get paid,

banshee_01 - February 4, 2012 reply

Ye shall not argue with ups

He know all, he sees all, he pulls it all out of his ass and shoves it in your face.

He’s just classy like that, unless you have a different opinion.

chai1836 - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

manning will make any line look better. he can quick snap, three step drop, or do whatever he needs to get rid of the ball.

kc571 - February 4, 2012 reply

this

is true.

agreed

i so agree with you

You should have just stopped with the first poll choice.

ChiefsFanInTexas - February 4, 2012 reply

This would be the best news since Montana

We didn’t think we would get him either. It won’t cost us a draft pick either so we can fill other areas of need through the draft an FA. Suddenly top FA like Evan Mathis or Carl Nicks will be wanting to come here to get their ring. A brilliant move if we can pull it off.

paulredfish - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

chiefs should be courting Nicks this moment, regardless of anyone else

buuuuut probably are not

Why are people so infatuated with the Montana deal?

The Chiefs put all their eggs in the Montana basket and it failed. It’s a sad commentary on the long term ineptitude of the Chiefs organization that the Montana trade is looked upon as a great moment for the franchise. There’s little chance of Manning playing more than two years. It’s a horribly short-sighted idea.

How did it fail?

It got them closer the Super Bowl than anytime since 1970. Just because they failed to develop anyone behind him doesn’t mean he was the reason. They didn’t do that before and after he left either.

The thought on Montana at the time was they were one guy away from the Superbowl.

So they gave up a first round draft pick for him. And he got hurt pretty frequently. And if Dave Kreig hadn’t been on the roster they never would have made it out of the wild card round of the playoffs. I think it speaks volumes to how unsuccessful the Chiefs have been since the early 70s that “closer” is cause for celebration.

I went to the AFC championship game in Buffalo that year. It was miserable. And old Joe Montana got hurt again.

So they'd have gotten farther with that draft pick?

As evident by all the other first round picks who have taken them beyond the AFC Championship game?

There's no way of telling an alternate time line like that.

But I would argue that they don’t beat Pittsburgh without Dave Kreig coming into the game off the bench and throwing a TD pass. And they don’t beat Houston the next week without a monster, record-setting (9 sack) performance from the defense. Hell, Marcus Allen had a monster game in Houston, too.

And in Montana’s last year with us they were one and done in the playoffs losing to Miami.

they don't beat houston without montana period the de played great, the dolphin game was a

close shoot out. I still like the montana. How can the montana move be a failure when he took the chiefs the furtheist they gone in the playoffs. The last playoff win was when montana was the qb

But

There were three NFL starters in that draft at QB who would have cost us much less than a 1st round pick (and played more than two years), Dave Krieg was not much of a step down from Montana, there was elite talent available with that first rounder that could have made our great defense even better and in the end, all that Montana got us was a blowout loss in the AFC Championship game.

I was really glad for the win over Houston, but Montana didn’t help the Chiefs in the long run or all that much in the short-run.

I posted this already, but the D had a massive game against Houston.

Tying a playoff record with 9 sacks.

Have you ever seen The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance? There’s a famous line in the movie: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” I think that’s what Chiefs fans have done with Joe Montana.

montana went down with a concussion in the buffalo game, will never no what would of happened if he played the whole game

kimble anders drop in the end zone didn’t help the cause either

I Have No Idea What Your Argument Is Here

All Slappy’s saying is that Montana was a short-term Band-Aid (and he was) and that it didn’t produce what it was supposed to (which it didn’t). He’s right.

for the 2 years we had montana and to make it to the afc west championship with montana is a success for the chiefs franchise

I would make that trade again if i could, I just wish we would of got montana a little sooner. We had the DE and montana fixed the qb spot. The montana was one of the best trades the chiefs have done in a long time.

Agreed.

I’d do that again in a heartbeat.

I think for some weird reason Chiefs fans seem to think just having Montana on their team was a great thing.

They Niners got rid of Montana in favor of Steve Young and they were right! They won the Superbowl with Young after they got rid of Montana!

So?

I don’t think Young was available to the Chiefs. What’s your point?

Probably That We Overpaid

And we did…by a lot. The Niners had to get rid of him a lot more than we needed to acquire him.

My point is the Niners got the long end of the stick on that trade.

They got rid of an old player they no longer had any use for and picked up a stud D lineman with their additional draft pick they got from us and they won the Superbowl.

We got “Hey everybody! We got closer than we’ve been since 1970! And Montana was on the cover of SI twice!”

The Chiefs beat the Niners that year in regular season

The niner’s had a better “team” that year, not a better QB, in my opinion.

Supersport - February 4, 2012 reply

That is some...

bullshit revisionist history, man. I really doubt you were watching the team at that time for that tripe to be coming out of your mouth.

Nicoloco - February 4, 2012 reply

The Montana trade gave Chiefs fans what they crave more than anything else: national media coverage.

I think that’s why fans remember that marginally successful two years so fondly. KC fans are always bitching about how their teams never get enough media attention and having Joe Montana close out his career in KC gave them what they want more than the Superbowl.

Agreed

The Montana trade was more about publicity and a name than good football strategy. I was actually more excited about the Marcus Allen deal that year…he did a lot more for the team than Montana.

And that first round pick netted Dana Stubblefield, who was a big part of the Niners winning another Super Bowl shortly after.

I doubt the Chiefs would have taken Stubblefield with that pic, I think they would have gone offense.

But I agree totally.

Probably

Often overlooked fact, though…Mark Brunell was a 5th round pick in that draft. I would much rather have had him than two years of Montana.

Agreed.

Oh, And

Trent Green and Elvis Grbac were 8th rounders that year.

Jee-zus, Carl Peterson was such a shit evaluator of quarterbacks. Three future NFL starters slipped right by him in that draft, both of the 8th rounders eventually ended up becoming Chiefs QBs…after we paid more than an 8th rounder for them.

But if only he had that first round pick back

the Chiefs would have been so much better off. Being the shrewd evaluator of talent he was and all.

But That's Okay

We ended up with Jaime Fields and Lindsay Knapp, and they were much more important to the process.

Only good pick from that draft was Will Shields (who we stole in the third round). With that first rounder, though, we could have had Michael Strahan or Carlton Gray. Unreal how much talent was there in the late rounds.

Remember when Brady Quinn nearly dropped to us?

Peterson loved loved loved Brady Quinn. And the Browns traded up one spot ahead of us to get him.

Best QB He Ever Saw

Todd Blackledge, Part Deux.

Pity Quinn Can't Hit A Target More Than 10 Yards Downfield

Think of all the promotions Peterson could have done with a pretty boy QB. :)

the whole montana thing was the need for a legit qb to make a super bowl run

we had the DE back then, we needed montana to make it legit, the qb spot has been awful for the chiefs, besides green, dawson, and a gannon who never got to play. The chiefs got to the afc west chamionship, and we haven’t won a playoff game since montana

There Were Three Legit NFL QBs In That Draft

One of whom won a Super Bowl.

And two of them were taken in the 8th round. and the other in the 5th

You can criticize Peterson for being a bad evaluator…but EVERYONE missed on those three.
You are looking through the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
Looking at the draft realistically, let’s say we kept that 1st round pick and spent it on a QB. The best available QB on most (probably including the Chiefs) boards was Billy Joe Hobert, whom you probably remember from his years of holding a clipboard and publicly announcing he wasn’t ready to play.
And taking Hobert would have been a huge reach.

So the Chiefs looked at their board and decided that getting Montana for that pick was better than anything else. And frankly, apparently 29 other teams all agreed, not just once, but at least 4 times.

So no, there were not 3 legit NFL QB’s in that draft. There were 2 in Bledsoe and Mirer, and a whole bunch of lottery tickets, 3 of which panned out. Which is a surprisingly high amount.

RoyalPug - February 4, 2012 reply

I'm not one of those fans, though.

And I still think it was a successful trade.

if that was failure...

I’ll take some more of it. Montana’s first year was a beauty to behold and he took a bunch of stiffs to an AFC championshiop… Willie Davis, J.J. Birden, Keith Cash, none of whom did anything after he left. I wish he’d stayed one more year. That was my highpoint as a Chiefs fan, none of that one-and-done crap that creates a complex.

Nicoloco - February 4, 2012 reply

I don't see how in any way shape or form this would be a bad signing

You give him a contract that is incentive based so you don’t get jammed up if he doesn’t play, or play well for that matter. Peyton at 70% is 100% better than anything else we have on the roster. He can pass knowledge onto Stanzi and groom him to be the future.

RamX21 - February 4, 2012 reply

LOL why would Manning take a incentive based contract to sign with us . For us to even get in the room were gonna have to put a guaranteed we will take you no matter what contract on the table .

You guys are kidding yourselves if you think thats not the case here

I'd take peyton over cassel but only if we don't go after RG3!

kcchiefs2782 - February 4, 2012 via Android app reply

now that would be something i would love to have RG3

ottawachiefsfan - February 4, 2012 reply

Manning is the answer.

MUCH more of one that Orton. If we move away from Cassel, this is our best option.

It's just like poker

The big names will tell you going all in is not a bad thing.

PSUkegreen - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

if manning

Is out there and he is half strength you take him. A half strength manning is better than Cassel or Orton if he is fully healthy throw whatever at him to get to kc whatever sell your house I don’t care with manning on kc we are top 3 team in the league.

rickrock58 - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

So we play 20+ million year for half a Manning ?

*pay

a half strength manning

Is Cassel with better decision making and look what Cassel did in 2010

rickrock58 - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

but at 20+ million a year ? lol NO !!!

no

He wouldn’t cost 20 million but what im saying is manning at half strength is still clever enough to work around his weaknesses Cassel can’t you can’t teach football smarts manning has it Cassel doesn’t.

rickrock58 - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

you're serious, aren't you ... wow,

as much as I dislike Cassel even I’d rather have Matty Nice than a half-strength Manning

half strength manning < Your random college QB

So yeah.

Half a player is better than a whole player?

even if that player is Peyton Manning I still would say no. If he isn’ healthy or at full strength I’d rather resign Orton and take my chances with him. If Manninf is 100%, checks out, shows he can throw well and still maintains his accuracy then I’d throw the bank his direction. Otherwise not a chance. Better safe than sorry.

I cannot spell today

Wherever Manning goes,

the team will absolutely have to make the commitment to winning It All now. If we were to join the sweepstakes, that would definitely bring some excitement to KC that we havent seen in a long time. I’d imagine not only would lock up our key FA’s but we would definitely have to assure Manning protection…IE at least 2 more top tier Olineman.

KCfosho - February 4, 2012 reply

I like this^

Pioli would never sign Manning.

Look at the Colts. They got Manning because they sucked as a team. They were contenders for a decade with Manning. Then they go right back to sucking without Manning. So who deserves the credit for the decade of success? Pioli wants to build a team by the grab bag method and dumpster diving. That way any success that comes along he can directly and rightfully so claim the credit. He can’t do that by buying a Manning.

Idahochief - February 4, 2012 reply

Manning to the Chiefs would likely end the same way Favre to the Vikings ended -- badly.

You mean one play away from the Super Bowl?

I’d take my chances, especially since Manning isn’t an asshat like Favre.

If you make a deal like this it's an all or nothing thing.

You are mortgaging the future of your organization for one shot a the Superbowl now. The Vikings didn’t get there and now there’s a smoldering crater where they used to be. In terms of the long term health of that organization the Favre trade was terrible for them. And they didn’t get what they wanted from it either.

Why is it all or nothing?

Chiefs will not be giving up any draft picks for him, and they have a ton of cap space.

You're going all in with Manning. You're only going to get a couple of years out of him.

He’ll be 36 and is coming off three neck operations. If you go with Manning you’re not going to have him for more than a couple of years, thus the need to win right now. You can’t build a team around him.

What does that even mean, going all in?

They’re not going to stop drafting and developing players just because they have Manning.

By "all in" I mean you're doing everything for the very short term.

And if what you try to do in the short term doesn’t work it tends to fuck up what you’re doing in the long term.

I give up.

Yeah, I guess if they get Manning, they’ll just trade all their draft picks and stop signing other players.

I would use Minnesota as an example.

They bring in Favre because they’re “one guy away.” And it fails. And then they bring him back. And now they suck.

Yup

Although Favre wasn’t a bad signing for them. He was just a free agent…all it cost was his contract.

And their future.

Well

Their other options were Tarvaris Jackson and John David Booty. Nope.

Most of their problems just stem from that team getting old. Their o-line just fell apart. The Favre thing was a reasonable gamble because their window was closing.

And

They didn’t have to mortgage their future for him because Favre didn’t cost them a draft pick.

That's a good point.

And since the Chiefs aren’t old I’d hate to see them get all short-sighted and go with Manning.

I've u had a legit shot at a superbowl for 3 years or uncertainity for 3 years which would u take

well if favre runs out of bounds againest the saints the vikes go to the super bowl if the vikes kick a fg

yup then favre would be the savor of the vikings

wwJamaalCharlesdo - February 4, 2012 reply

Lilja will

Be getting a call from Manning soon to get some insider info on the team.

If Manning is smart like I think he is, his best option is the Chiefs. The offense has plenty of weapons, the D is going to be nasty next season, and the division is piss poor. He will have 3-4 good chances at winning the bowl every year. Do whatever it takes Pioli!! It would be the most incredible times in Chiefs history and anyone who has a brain knows that!

Chiefsallday25 - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

What I want....

Is for KC to PROVE TO ME that they are doing EVERYTHING they can to win……Not spending salary cap dollars and making hires like Daboll, does not instill confidence in me that they are doing everything they can…If they dont GO AFTER Manning VERY AGGRESSIVELY, then it also proves they are not THAT intersted in fielding the best possible team..

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again…NFL owners like Jerry Jones, Al Davis, Daniel Snyder get bad raps for being aggressive, spending money and many times making bad moves….BUT, you can not fault them for at least TRYING….you KNOW they WANT to win….not so sure we can say that about KC….hell its been almost 20 years since we won a playoff game….and have only won 1 SB in franchise history…and that was 43 years ago..

KCinAZ - February 4, 2012 reply

Snyder is one of the most incompetent owners in the NFL.

Snyder is a terrible fantasy league player who happens to have enough money to actually buy a team.

Jones and the late Al Davis aren’t far behind him. The thing that’s killing the Cowboys is Jones’ insistence of being his own GM. And Al Davis’ death may be the best thing to happen for the Raiders on-field success in years.

What good is spending money on big name free agents if it’s not giving any positive results at all?

Chief Willie Wildcat - February 4, 2012 reply

Correctimundo!

If Jerry Jones would get out of his own way and hire a competent GM, their team could be deadly.

You guys are missing the point...

Im saying…even though these guys are dumbasses….you at least know that they are TRYING to win…not just WIN..but win a CHAMPIONSHIP….that is their goal EVERY YEAR…..its not just about making money..its about WINNING IT ALL….These NFL teams, even when the seats are not full every game, they have loing records etc…are still making shitloads of money every year…Merchandise, tickets, suites, food, consessions, PARKING, endorsments….some teams choose to take that money and invest it in making the team better every year…and then some teams, like KC, stick the BIGGEST chunk of money in their pockets, and field a mediocre team…..because we, the fans, are going to show up next year anyway…

KCinAZ - February 4, 2012 reply

Yep, you get the feeling that with guys like Jones

The joy comes from winning. With Clark most of the joy comes from profits.

Chief Willie Wildcat - February 4, 2012 reply

Jerry Jones has already made his mark...

He has 3 SB trophies displayed in his BILLION dollars stadium

KCinAZ - February 4, 2012 reply

I said yes

But will they acquire Manning? Highly doubtful! It won’t break my heart either way. Too many questions for a guy on his way out of the league.

Considering that QB has been the Chiefs weak link since our last playoff win

(outside of the brief Trent Green era), I say yes, bring him in if possible.

Bonofied - February 4, 2012 reply

He is 35 yrs old

If we want the franchise QB badly enough then move up for RG3. Otherwise stay in house at QB.

JC25FoMVP - February 4, 2012 reply

I totally agree.

If you’re going to roll the dice on a QB I would much rather see them trade up and take RG3.

How about signing Peyton on a three year deal.

Then going out and picking up a QB in the first round next year and shelving him for a couple of seasons like Green Bay did? So nice prototypical QBs coming out next year that would fit that role perfectly.

I'd do that if possible

JC25FoMVP - February 4, 2012 reply

Forget it! We just hired Daboll

As in OC that is a running back offensive minded coach. Getting Manning (if I might quote a past president): “ain’t going to happen. Wouldn’t be prudent.”

cvane - February 4, 2012 reply

Daboll used to be a WR coach..

ExRoyalsFan - February 4, 2012 reply

I love how the people who say we shouldn't go all out for Peyton

are the same people that want us to give up most of our draft & a player or 2 for RG3. If Peyton doesn’t work out all we lose is cash.

RamX21 - February 4, 2012 via mobile reply

MtHammer - February 4, 2012 reply

The Chiefs just hired Brian Daboll

as the offensive coordinator. Daboll was without question the least qualified and least competent (read cheapest) of those who were interviewed. Those crafty Chiefs were not saving money on Daboll in order to be able to make a play for Peyton Manning They were saving money so they could save more money by having Cassel compete against a couple of scrubs for the quarterback position.

G.L. - February 4, 2012 reply

Maning gets the pleasure of choosing where he'll play

I don’t know that we could sway him here to the outdoor arena, but we have a more to offer than most teams in terms of Defense and Offensive weapons. Manning would make us an instant contender if he is truly healthy. I think if we don’t actively persue him it would be a disregard of everything Hunt and Pioli have spoken about recently.

Manning that is, turble spellr =)

Salina_Chiefs_Fan - February 4, 2012 reply

Sources?

With the news coming down that Peyton Manning has been medically cleared to play,

I’ve yet to hear this from anywhere but Peyton’s camp, with no doctor’s names attached. Indy says he hasn’t passed their physical, nor have they cleared him to play.

The only thing I’ve seen is he’s cleared to practice.

We talking ’bout practice?

neiowakcfan - February 4, 2012 reply

Percentage of Yeses who are under 35 years old & still way too impatient to see the negative long term ramifications of this kind of deal...I'll take the over at 75%

Peyton to KC:

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO

2 average to decent years left at best; neck problems dropping his a$$ on the bench frequently – highly likely (best of medical care notwithstanding, I’ve had cervical fusion of 2 discs and certain problems remain for life…others I know who’ve had it fared much worse than me).

This is one deal I hope & pray Pioli never makes – it’s time for KC to have a fresh young QB that we’ve developed ourselves (even if we get him in his first 2 years on a trade) than more of other team’s leftovers when the QB has lost several steps.

WorL4Chiefs - February 4, 2012 reply

crap!

I was really hoping for a Saunders, or jackson hire… Da-who?
I was also really jazzed about trying to make a move for Peyton. I don’t care what anybody says… it’s a gamble worth taking. And IMO a blindfolded 50% Peyton would kick the shit out of Cassel. An 80% Orton (with vision) would beat Cassel. However, the Da-who hire sheds light on the extrenely conservative, mediocre approach by management. Thus, no run for Peyton. Oh, and the Montana deal was well worth, so put that in your pipe and smoke it,

My thing about RG3

is that there’s no guarantee that he’ll have a great NFL career. Just because someone had a great college career doesn’t mean that he’ll be just as great in the NFL. Now I’m not saying that he won’t have a good career, just that there’s no way to know for sure until it’s too late to do anything about it. And I know Peyton is a gamble as well since he has health issues, but if the Chiefs are going to take a gamble, why not gamble on the future HOF?

The Green Tomahawk - February 4, 2012 reply

With Manning here

the biggest asset is that the DC that can rattle the hell out of him will be his head coach.Plus w/RAC knowing how to stop him,he should be able to help devise some plans to make him even better.Good Lord if he’s healthy & wants to play here,we need to get him.

chiefs63 - February 4, 2012 reply

It seems like some of us

are so used to failure, we prefer it. I call self-sabotage on that. If Manning is healthy, this is a no-brainer.

Nicoloco - February 4, 2012 reply

If it is money he is after

it will be the Redskins. If it is the best chance to win, it is the Jets. I think he is going to the Cards….. But it is a no-brainer. If wants to go to KC, we have to sign him

bonesjackson - February 4, 2012 reply

Can you see him wanting to play for The Rat?

ExRoyalsFan - February 4, 2012 reply

Great QB but wouldn't sign him

Too much money, too old, 3 neck surgeries (I don’t know of ANY NFL player that played with that history), new coaching staff, new terminology and offensive system, less than adequate offensive line that may need three new players starting this year, offensive coordinator that is apparently good — but with the running game NOT the passing game, and a GM that may not be as accomodating or treat him quite like he was treated in Indy. Don’t think Manning would sign nor would the Chiefs sign him. I think they feel they can use the money on several younger and more productive players.

If we were set everywhere on this team and still had money to burn, believe me, I wouldn’t hesitate to spend Clark’s money, but unfortunately we are not just a QB away from the super bowl. We are much better thanwe were 3 years ago, but still need more help in other places on the team than just QB.

cvane - February 4, 2012 reply

Too much money!!! Are you paying him?

OJ In Nevada - February 5, 2012 reply

Looks like Cassel somehow voted 339 times.

Hes good on the computer if he could just play football.

OJ In Nevada - February 5, 2012 reply

What do we have now that we can take a chance on

We have nobody good enough to take us anywhere Peyton is better than all our quarterbacks, i say go for Peyton and start looking for a Qb in the first round, remember with the new labor deals rookies that are drafted in the first round are not seeing big contracts like that anymore. Remember that was one labor deals that when on. So i say go for it, let see what he can do and have Ricky Stanzi and whoever we draft battle for the backup position.