Originally Posted by Bacchus
Ok, this I agree with you. Right now the Broncos I feel are better than the 2010 Colts but they are not as good as the Patriots and maybenot as good as the Texans or Ravens. I agree Denver is not there yet. So what is your point? When is KC going to be as good as those teams? Are you saying Denver should not have signed Manning because they weren't going to be the best team in the AFC this year?
All I know is that Denver has a young OL, young WR and behind McGahee they have young talent. This year Denver might be the 2010 Colts, Next year they might be the 2005 Colts and the 3rd year they might be the 2006 Colts.
Either way Denver is so much better off now than they were 6 months ago it is not even funny especia;lly if you are a Chief's fan.
As far as your SF referance I think that goes back to Manning and Harbaugh. There would have been a huge conflict there because Harbuagh is too hands on on the offense and I think that would have made Peyton uncomfortable. Of course I am only guessing on this.
You also forget KC wanted Manning badly but he would not even give them an interview. I'm sure you would be singing quite a different tune if he was on your team this year.
The point is that Manning chose where he would have control. I think he would have been just fine in San Francisco.
If KC had signed Manning, he would have had a much better shot simply because of the team surrounding him. KC would have offered him a better deal such as a top 10 defense and top 10 running game with a good receiving core and OT's.
I think you're forgetting that Denver was a 4-12 team going into last year.