CoMoChief |
01-16-2012 10:59 AM |
Gotta resign Orton. you keep Cassel and let them battle it out for the starting job (ultimately you give the nod to Orton, but at least it'd give Cassel something to work his ass for). You keep both QB's so that we're not put in a position like we were last season where we're starting a Palko or even Stanzi. I know a lot of people wanted to see him get some snaps, myself included, but look at what was left in the cupboard....Palko. Almost anyone would be better than Palko, so that's not saying much. Cassel is an expensive backup, but we can't do anything about the way Pioli handled that mess and awarded him a contract he didn't deserve. Just have to accept that fact. Besides, we have the money to pay both Orton and keep Cassel, and while MC is an expensive backup, and wouldn't normally have that much money invested in 2 players at that position, there's nothing wrong (in fact it's smart) with having a good solid insurance policy, which Cassel makes a fine backup IMO.
Why sign Orton and keep Cassel? If anything else it's because there isn't a better alternative out there.
The FA list is a VERY sad list of bums. Best one on that list is Orton, and Matt Flynn is just a stupid choice on all levels. Don't want to go down that "Cassel" road again where one QB plays well for a team for a handfull of games, then we sign him in the offseason and give him a contract he doesn't deserve. FA is a no go unless we resign Orton.
Peyton Manning. There are 2 major things w/ Manning. First, obviously his health. Is he going to be able to come back to his former self and for how long. He'll be 36 by the time we have next season's draft. Neck/Back/Spinal injuries are very serious. Will he retire after playing one season, 2? A health Manning IMO would give 2-3 more years of prime service, depending on the Oline he's behind, and yes more than likely the Chiefs would instantly become SB contenders for that short time period. But another thing is that there is just no way the Colts let him go without getting a shit ton in return. Would we have to give up Bowe? 2 first rd picks plus another first day pick (or more)??? Is that worth getting a SB when it could effect the team's future? I dunno, this franchise hasn't won shit in a awfully long time so that temptation is definitely there, but I think we can get to a SB without him, and without giving up the farm in the process. Personally I don't think it's worth it. What happens if he has neck troubles and decides to take his money and walk away and retire? That would be a shitty situation for the Chiefs.
This team isn't in the position to where it can just give up draft picks and go for the homerun so to speak. We're in fantastic shape with players 1-30, after that it's ****ing terrible, a major dropoff in talent on this roster. We saw that this past season when this team was plagued with injuries. This team desperately needs depth. It's that simple.
Drafting a QB in the first rd. Face it, there are 2 QB's that are worthy of drafting high in the first rd. Luck and RG3. After that the talent drops off dramatically. Say no to Barkley, Moore, Foles, Cousins, in the first rd. Personally (even though it's against the status quo)....I'd draft RB Trent Richardson, I know you can pluck RB off of trees, but he's a spectacular player and our running game was shit last season once Charles was out w/ his knee inj, and who knows if he's going to return to his former self. He's a small shifty back that requires a lot of cutting and exploding into that 2nd gear. Can his knee handle that? Richardson gives a fine backup option to Charles. Keep Battle for ST and McClain just needs to be on the field more. He's a fine player, but just didn't see the field all that much.
FA and Rds 2-7 go after OT, Interior OL, NT, S, ILB,
|