Let us just assume for just one moment that Oz continues to operate the offense efficiently. Is it really prudent to go back to the QB that the offense was stagnant and inconsistent with?
When Bill Belichick decided to stick with Tom Brady over Drew Bledsoe in 2001, many Pats fans were upset with Belichick over how he treated Bledsoe. Belichick was criticized in the media too and that included veterans who thought Bledsoe should have been treated better. If you think Belichick knew Brady was going to turn into this hall of fame, "all time great" who would guide the team to 6 SBs and 4 rings, then you would be crazy. All he knew at the time was the offense was responding to Brady. He chose to do what was the unpopular thing and he chose correctly.
Very similar situation with Favre and Rodgers. Favre was going back and forth with what he wanted to do as far as retirement. Rodgers was in his last year in 2008. The Packers had no clue what they had in Rodgers, as far as game conditions. Pretty sure they had a pretty decent idea as far as what they saw in practice. Ted Thompson made the very unpopular decision in getting rid of Favre.
Now, I am not saying Oz is gong to be Brady or Favre. My contention is if the offense continues to respond to Oz and IF he is efficient, then Kubiak/Elway will need to make a similar decision in my estimation. If that means cutting him loose and enduring the wrath of ignorant fans who refuse to accept Manning is not going to operate an offense that Kubiak will not be running, or the veterans now in the media who get offended then so be it. I for one would be behind them 100% if they make that decision (especially if the offense continues to respond and balance is established with Oz.)