http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/stop...uto-159187.jpg

I'M IN HELL!!! OH, OH!!!!

I have no problem with Pioli bringing in Cassel. It's the fact that he is still wed to him.

And playing Orton had a purpose. Even with the loss and the struggles on offense, at least he looked like a real QB... as opposed to Cassel.

Depressing. You really can make a valid argument that the Chiefs are close, very close, to contending, if they had a legit threat at QB.

Worse case scenario.

We got rid of all of the guys that have common sense and are left with the one guy that doesn't.

****.

truph!

That's why I have no problem trading up for Luck and really believe we should. We know we need a QB, let's attempt to get the best prospect in quite some time and bite the bullet, so it pays dividends for the next decade plus.

Of course. If Luck were available, which is as probable as a snow storm in central San Diego.

Orton went through several OCs before ending up here and he made the offense look pretty good when he came in on short notice. If offensive continuity was the problem I'd think we'd see some of that with Orton.

Give up three first rounders.

Wow it happened the last time we had a legit and healthy franchise QB. :shake:

We'll find out March 8th (?) if giving up 3 first rounders is even an option. Even that may not be enough to pry Luck from the Colt's clamy hands.

Yeah, but keep in mind, Palko was playing prior to that. Of course, Orton looked better.

Matt Cassel was having his worst year, no doubt and I would love to see him replaced, but Orton was still average at best and I still don't see the fascination alot of people are having with Orton.

3 games-1 TD, 2 picks.

If you did offer three firsts and they wanted a player in addition to the picks; who would you trade for the ability to pick Luck? Is there anyone that is off limits?

Valid point. I'm still going with #1 though. ;)