Kansas City Chiefs: Why They Are Better Off Without Peyton Manning

The Kansas City Chiefs had a one-sided love affair with Peyton Manning this offseason before he eventually decided to sign with the division rival Denver Broncos.

Fans were captivated by the idea that Manning would arrive in shining armor and save the franchise from their winless playoff woes. The Chiefs’ last playoff win came during the 1994 playoffs with former San Francisco 49er great Joe Montana leading the way.

The perfect scenario envisioned Manning coming in and duplicating a late-career revival in Kansas City, a team thought by some to be the ideal fit for the veteran quarterback.

There was nary an explanation as to why Manning never allowed Scott Pioli and Company to show him their digs in Kansas City—just a reported contract offer that may have come off a tad bit desperate.

Is it possible that the Chiefs are better off with their veiled affection for Manning not reciprocated?

Manning was part of a rebuilding project when the Indianapolis Colts selected him with the No. 1 overall pick in the 1998 NFL draft. They spent subsequent years specifically building a team around their new signal-caller, with great success.

However, the construction of the Colts’ roster came back to haunt them this past season when a complicated neck injury kept Manning off the field for the first time in his career. The team was barely able to muster two victories en route to acquiring the top pick in this year’s draft—using it on Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck.

While the Colts appear to be trying to catch lightning in a bottle again with Luck, the Chiefs are a team on the rise.

Although their 2011 season is widely viewed as a disappointment, the Chiefs were still able to finish with seven wins, only one game away from repeating as AFC West champs for the first time in franchise history.

Lack of preparation and injuries to key players were the primary culprits that prevented the Chiefs from achieving greater success last season. Rest assured, Pioli and new head coach Romeo Crennel will stop at nothing to prevent that from happening again.

Bringing Manning in would have cost any team a great deal, given the contract Denver gave him. For an aging quarterback coming off multiple neck procedures, that seems like a steep price to pay while hoping he returns to form.

However, the Broncos never went all-in with the Tim Tebow experiment. Thus, they were in a better position to gamble than most other teams that were in the market for a quarterback.

Were the Chiefs ever really in the market for a starting quarterback though?

Matt Cassel’s tenure in Kansas City can be described as incomplete at best.

A subpar debut campaign in 2009 was followed by a fantastic season in which Cassel was named to the Pro Bowl, throwing for 3,116 yards, 27 touchdowns and only seven interceptions. His 2011 season, although not spectacular, can be forgiven due to injuries and a lack of groundwork laid by the lame-duck coaching staff.

With more weapons in place compared to 2010, it isn’t a stretch to envision Cassel being just as productive this season. The Chiefs’ brass has done a brilliant job adding depth and overall talent through free agency and the draft to better protect against a repeat of the 2011 season anytime soon.

Assuming he is healthy, is Manning a better quarterback than Cassel? Without question. But had the Chiefs been successful in luring Manning to Kansas City, and had it not gone as planned, the franchise would be set back much further than if Cassel can’t get the job done this season.

Even with a valiant effort, Manning not donning Chiefs red could be the best thing to happen to Kansas City.

The Chiefs will need to find a franchise quarterback soon, but rolling the dice on someone who may or may not be his former self wasn’t the answer. At least they know what Cassel will bring to the table, we think.

Contact Jeremy at [e-mail], on Twitter @KCPopFlyBoy and at popflyboys.com.