Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonGekko
Did they give him the opportunity to start? No. Stanzi was not given that commitment to develop him like Green Bay gave to Rodgers, etc. Stanzi was drafted to be a backup, not to eventually become the future of the franchise. This is my whole point. The last guy the Chiefs did this for was Blackledge, and that was 3 decades ago.
What I'm saying is I'd like the Chiefs to take a guy, preferably with a high draft choice, and build the program around him. In my opinion this is how modern NFL franchises are successful, but my benchmarks are Superbowl champions and teams that continually make the playoffs. Maybe you have different benchmarks than mine.
|
Hey man, you and several others are preaching to the choir. I get it. I agree. Point is that several posters here make assumptions that they simply can't make, like
1. the chiefs could have traded down
2. the chiefs could have traded back up
We simply don't know, and I'm guessing, with guys like Dorsey and Reid running the show, that they did the best they could. I would have loved them to draft Cousins last year. Skins got him. Maybe they couldn't trade up, and maybe they had him valued lower than the skins. Doesn't really matter, because it was a different regime last year.
Point is, we are all arguing about what THIS regime did, but bringing up the history of the past three regimes over 30 years. This regime just so happened to get the 1.1 pick in a year with no 1.1 QB. Bad freakin luck. IMHO, they have don't about the best job they could've to improve the team in the time frame they have been given to date (8 months)