THIS. He will be extended at the end of the season even if we go winless.

No. I don't think we will go winless.

They cant fire Pioli.

Who would they replace him with?

Gonzo, forgive me for asking this question. But are you seriously considering what hammersticks posted as a threat to LACF?

I'm asking because the latitude for banishment has become a little wider in recent months. I know that an overt threat is going to get a member the hook.

But I read this as a "F you, LACF" rather than a threat.

What is funny is that all the other teams in the NFL are sitting there laughing at the Chiefs and the QB Situation. No other GM would touch this guy.

How much longer is Clark going to put up with Cassel/Pioli IF this season is sub .500?

i didnt really report the guy, i was just ****ing with him.

his mommy gave him too much protein in his muscle milk shake this morning

Lol, you caught that did ya? I was trying to bait him into saying yes.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...157/ackbar.jpg

Oh, gotcha. Sorry for the interruption. On with the show.

This is, yet again, why I have been saying START STANZI. We know what we have in Matt. That gif of him jumping and falling on his ass pretty much sums it up. Stanzi is an unknown. He came in the last game and basically did the exact same thing that Matt did this game, yet Matt has been in the league longer and is our ****ing starter. If we start Stanzi, and he succeeds, we succeed. If he fails, we fail and we get our guy next year. I don't think he will fail, but that is besides the point. Cassel has got to go and at some point in time we need a real look at what we have on the roster. A couple of snaps in preseason is not a big enough sample size. Anyone remember Cassel's first season, why can't Stanzi get a shot if Can'tsel can continue to play after the awful start he had?

Well, that answers it indirectly. Ask a Packers fan if they are satisfied with Aaron Rogers as their starting quarterback and they wouldn't need 1 second to say "yes". They certainly wouldn't need any qualifying information or respond with a question like "over whom?"

So the truth is that you are not satisfied with Cassel but you don't believe there have been any better options available to the Chiefs. Am I correct?

Sure, I'll take Rodgers over Cassell. What's your point?

They are still salivating over Newsome's lackey with the Ravens.

I was trying to confirm whether or not your Cassel campaign is real or feigned. You've been running the same gag for so long it became questionable in my mind. I am relieved to know that it is an act.

Uh yeah, if you asked about 90% of team's fans if they would take their starting quarterback over Rodgers theyre probably going to say NO. I never said Cassell was an elite guy. But so what, Matt Hasselbeck and Rex Grossman aren't elite guys. Alex Smith isnt an elite guy. Brad Johnson wasnt an elite guy. Just because your team doesnt have an elite guy doesnt mean your team is ****ed.

Those teams didn't "consistently compete for superbowls."

Another GM?