I dunno - you're saying getting rid of Cutler was a slam dunk win and yet you have Broncos fans telling you it could have not been. I think the point's been made it's a not a slam dunk? There was three outcomes of this - Keeping Cutler (.500 team?) Getting Manning (.750+ team) or Trading Cutler and never getting a replacement (.300 team). So to say getting rid of Cutler was the correct decision - I don't know that it was. The only thing that didn't make it a disaster was signing Peyton. If we hadn't signed him this team would probably be in dire straits.
This debate is failing for the reason so many internet debates fail. Nobody is having the same debate. I'm not arguing that at the time the decision was made, it should have been regarded as a good decision. Has hindsight made it a good decision? Hell yes, it's obvious! Isn't it? I mean we are not seriously entertaining thoughts otherwise right? If we are, we disagree.
Of course it seemed like a bad decision at the time. I thought so at the time and have never claimed otherwise. I guess I am willing to change my mind when the course of events prove me wrong. The insistence on placing value on alternative history makes more sense now. The counter argument insists on viewing it from the perspective of when the decision was made, and I am viewing it from my present day perspective.
Another thing we disagree on is that .500 mediocre football is better than .300 bad football. How is it better to be the team that missed the playoffs on the last game versus missing it by week 10? At the very least you get a better draft pick.
Lastly, there would have been options to pick up QB at least Cutler caliber QBs if Manning hadn't worked out. Alex Smith and Mark Sanchez are mediocre enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with Cutler and they can even match his sterling conference championship tally to boot.