Sure, if Peyton Manning was available, a Coach& GM would have to take a look. Probably to not have done so would have been considered not doing their jobs. But right now, had we gotten Peyton, we, as a franchise would be cooked. Instead , our guys did the right thing, stayed with the QB they had, and didn't permanently and irrevocably screw up our salary cap. We would have ended up like Denver, which has 1/4(or thereabouts) of their entire cap going to one guy, and that is after 3 neck surgeries. (As an aside, you don't do a 2nd and 3rd surgery if the 1st one went well).
So, here we are, brand new season, 7th yr qb , knows the Harbaugh (not Peyton) system perfectly, and we have the same D and ST as last yr, both #1, plus now we have added all the receivers, scatbacks, RBs, that we needed, got 3 good candidates to improve a less than perfect OL....and we are ready to make a legitimate run at the title. Had we acquired Peyton, good as he is, we wouldn't have been able to keep the D players we needed, nor could we have afforded all the O players added. Maybe for a yr, maybe not. But the good thing is , B& H did NOT sign Peyton, so all the above is just stuff we don't have to worry about. What I do wonder is, how is Denver going to carve out that much money when next yr comes around. They probably will have to raid the OL , DL , DBs, WRs, RBs, et al, just to be able to pay Peyton. In essence, scab the rest of the team just to pay their QB.
There are a few things in life, where if you decided NOT to do something really monumental, you came out a lot better than you would had you made that gamble.
It's true in new businesses, new acquisitions( of companies), and it is true in the NFL. Turns out our BEST move this yr...and there were a lot of them...was NOT to have signed Peyton. Hey, I got Peyton taking the Broncs to 8-8 this yr. God help 'em next yr...they are gonna need it.