Chiefs Belated Evening Cowfeces: Why we should start Stanzi in 2012

**RealSNR** · 03-11-2012, 08:48 PM

First of all this is assuming:

1. Pioli doesn't do the smart thing and trade down in the first or trade up with our 2nd rounder to grab Ryan Tannehill

2. We don't sign Matt Flynn or Kyle Orton, who will probably command lower-end starter money. Their contracts would be on the same level as Cassel's. Either you cut Cassel and sign one of them (not going to happen) or you stick with Cassel, Stanzi, and a free agent like Henne (which is what we SHOULDN'T do)

3. The Manning to KC thing is officially not happening

So we've been through the arguments why Cassel is not a starting QB however many times? We've heard them all. And we've interpreted them so many different ways one could write a doctoral dissertation on the subject. I'm not interested in getting into that.

Last training camp/preseason was the only game action in which we got to see Ricky play. People claim he sucked or wasn't good enough to beat out Palko. What people don't remember was what the kind of QB he was when his offensive line gave him time to throw. Not much time, either. These were 7 step drops with only about 3 seconds to look off the safety and fire. He was pretty composed under the pocket, never panicked, and when he had defenders immediately up in his grill after the snap, he actually kept the play alive. Shocking to see that in a QB.

Given his steady and sharp improvement in his career at Iowa and a full NFL offseason with the playbook and coaches, he's going to improve even more. I'd bet a lot that he'll look good in training camp, enough for the average football fan from any team to say, "He could make a stupendous #2 QB on my team."

That's optimistic. Probably too optimistic for many of you. Which is why you shouldn't even consider speculation about how good he is when getting on board with this idea.

So here's what I'm thinking:

We've agreed Cassel is crap, yes? We've also assumed Orton and/or Flynn would not be on this roster next year. This is MY thought experiment folks; if you want to picture Orton or Flynn as members of the Chiefs, go start your own thread. So we'll draft a QB or sign Henne/Derek Anderson/Sucky McSuck QB as Cassel's "competition" most likely to round out the squad. Okay. Are you guys really thinking they're that much better?

If you are, you're probably citing the fact that Cassel got us to the playoffs in 2010 on the legs of Charles, and that he has certainly demonstrated enough that if leashed hard, he can take care of the ball, be patient, and let defense/special teams make plays and throw well after the rest of our machine has some momentum. You're probably asking why we should risk interceptions, team morale, and entire games on a guy who (although through no fault of his own) has proven nothing yet in his first full year in the league. You're also sick of the people who aren't thinking this through clearly, and are loudly bitching because Pioli doesn't run this team like a Madden franchise. I'll address your concerns here.

The reasons why Stanzi should start:

1. Future QB development- The current model is to be patient. We may not have a shot at a blue-chip QB in this year's draft, but that shouldn't stop us from looking at all QBs in every draft until we've found one. But with that process comes the issue of cluster****ing. If we draft Weeden/Cousins/Lindley/Whomever, we're not going to cut Stanzi, Cassel will still start, and we'll probably have one of those guys round out the 3rd string. Nothing wrong with that, except for knowing who the best QB is? How exactly does one run tryouts in a situation where the incumbent sucks and the other two guys have never proven anything? You start the incumbent I guess, but how do you know when these projects you've drafted are ready to go? And I mean either one?

If you're serious about QB development and finding diamonds in the rough, you simply can't draft QBs just to ****ing collect them. They're not beanie babies. You're giving them good workouts and exposure in the offseason, but that's not enough if they just rot on the bench. And as backups, if Cassel gets injured or needs to take a hike midway through the season, what's the rule for patience? Clearly if they put up a Palko performance they should be ditched for the next guy. What if they play at the level of Cassel? They're young dudes. They need time to get used to starting, right? Isn't there something to be said for game-to-game improvement?

2. Roster cycling- So you've got your GM looking for hidden talent in drafts and making phone calls in the free agent boards to find backups, team veterans, or more losers like Tyler Palko. Whatever. The point is, if you stick with what you know in Cassel even if it's uncomfortable, it doesn't really encourage development beyond the starter spot. Now, this wouldn't be a problem at all if we had a franchise QB set at the starting position. But we're trying to upgrade that spot, aren't we? Brett Favre can go through 10+ years and 10+ backups and that's totally fine. Here, our backup is a pretty crucial position.

Think back to the cluster **** that was the Chiefs immediately after Trent Green. Huard was the shit veteran at the starting spot. When he goes down, your next in line is Brodie Croyle, which was good and hopeful and exciting until he couldn't be trusted to stay healthy. Wouldn't you rather know more about your backup QB? If Croyle had started, the season would not have been much different, but at least the second option is the familiar standby you can lean on when times get tough. By doing the same thing with Stanzi and Cassel, we can have "open" competition in camp. Stanzi would likely win. He'd start until he got injured or started being Palko. But AT LEAST you would know what's on the roster next offseason, and it would light a fire until Cassel's ass when he stepped back in.

3. I can't think of anything else, can you? Sorry this last reason isn't much of a climax, but it's the only thing left. We held out the remote hope that Cassel could improve for three seasons. It hasn't happened. If we get to the playoffs, how is relying on the same skittishness against the Ravens, Jets, Texans, or other fierce defense going to change? Coaching? Maybe. But this team has changed since the 2010 season. We're so much more talented and improved now. It's painfully obvious that QB is the last missing piece.

We didn't get one this offseason because we won too many games and didn't have the firepower to trade up. So game managing our way to another 8-8/9-7 season is going to change how? It's going to get us Landry Jones? Seriously? I'm not getting into the "QBs in the first round won't fall like Roethlisberger/Rodgers" debate. I've done it too many times. But it's absolutely foolish to think trying hard and taking the middle way is going to improve us. We either get good or we get bad. This middle way purgatory is going to keep us hoping and dreaming and wishing for a solution forever until we rebuild again.

With Stanzi at the helm, it's a change. Positive or negative? Doesn't matter. At least we'd be going in a direction, and would finally have some answers about how to move on.

I'm pretty sure I rambled and that there will be typos galore. This was kind of written through a single stream of consciousness. But if you can decipher it and agree with me, let's welcome the next starting QB of the Kansas City Chiefs: Ricky Stanzi.

MGRS13 · 03-11-2012, 08:52 PM

Jesus christ. First Manning now this shit again. cassel is our starting QB. Deal with it. Always has been the "plan". It sucks, but it is what it is.

**BigMeatballDave** · 03-11-2012, 08:54 PM

If its a fair competition, he could beat out Cassel.

Direckshun · 03-11-2012, 08:55 PM

Hammock Parties · 03-11-2012, 08:56 PM

O.city · 03-11-2012, 08:57 PM

Every one, get on board. The Stanzi express. If they can get Tebow to start in Denver, we can do it here.

Bambi · 03-11-2012, 09:00 PM

If they start Stanzi we will probably end up with the #1 pick and I'd be all in for that.

Mr_Tomahawk · 03-11-2012, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat

MORE STANZI GIFS!

SELL ME!

O.city · 03-11-2012, 09:02 PM

That one gif is enough. Look at his qb'ing skills. Stands tall, good footwork, nice velocity on the deep ball.

The guy literally did more in that one gif that Cassel has ever done.

Okie_Apparition · 03-11-2012, 09:03 PM

Get the man a pepsi

**the Talking Can** · 03-11-2012, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson

If they start Stanzi we will probably end up with the #1 pick and I'd be all in for that.

win/win

**Canofbier** · 03-11-2012, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MGRS13

Jesus christ. First Manning now this shit again. cassel is our starting QB. Deal with it. Always has been the "plan". It sucks, but it is what it is.

This season ought to be boom or bust, as far as I'm concerned. Either Stanzi defies expectations and is a legitimate starting quarterback, or he's not and we're in better position to get one. I'm tired of mediocrity.

Rasputin · 03-11-2012, 09:06 PM

I've never stop being on the start Stanzi bandwaggon. I think he can really do good and prove that he has what it takes to win in this league.

MGRS13 · 03-11-2012, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canofbier

This season ought to be boom or bust, as far as I'm concerned. Either Stanzi defies expectations and is a legitimate starting quarterback, or he's not and we're in better position to get one. I'm tired of mediocrity.

It will be hard to prove hes legit while backing up Cassel. Or even more likly not suiting up because hes #3 behind Cassel and Henne.

bricks · 03-11-2012, 09:11 PM

The diamond in the rough part,

I think you gotta still draft a QB. At this point, you draft a QB to create competition on your roster. Best man wins the job. I kinda agree with Pioli there in a sense. But mainly to see who is the best amongst them all. I mean how else are you going to be able to determine what you have? You gotta experiment and try shit out first in order to discover? Thats, at least my theory.

Thats all the Chiefs could do at this point. Sadly though, Im not so sure if Pioli will do that? He may give the job to Cassel? I hope he doesn't, but...?

Im with you, I say give Stanzi a shot. Draft a QB as well whether its 1st, 2nd or 3rd round. Maybe the QB they draft is better than Stanzi? Maybe Stanzi is the next Tom Brady? Regardless, the only thing the Chiefs could do is experiment and hopefully find that guy.

*Also, Im for signing Orton only if it means getting rid Cassel. But I know thats not going to happen. I don't want Orton if it means they are keeping Cassel. Because then I know thats a pussy move by the organization. It'll show that they are scared to give a young QB a chance. Signing Orton and keeping Cassel only gets in the way of finding that "young stud" at QB.

I also think that since it seems that they are out of the Manning sweepstakes. they should do what they can to improve the rest of the team. Sign a NT. Maybe try to find another ILB? Upgrade the OL as well? Sign another RB, etc.

03-11-2012, 08:48 PM
RealSNR Special Teams ACE!!! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the hell is SNR Casino cash: $-1304792	Belated Evening Cowfeces: Why we should start Stanzi in 2012 First of all this is assuming: 1. Pioli doesn't do the smart thing and trade down in the first or trade up with our 2nd rounder to grab Ryan Tannehill 2. We don't sign Matt Flynn or Kyle Orton, who will probably command lower-end starter money. Their contracts would be on the same level as Cassel's. Either you cut Cassel and sign one of them (not going to happen) or you stick with Cassel, Stanzi, and a free agent like Henne (which is what we SHOULDN'T do) 3. The Manning to KC thing is officially not happening So we've been through the arguments why Cassel is not a starting QB however many times? We've heard them all. And we've interpreted them so many different ways one could write a doctoral dissertation on the subject. I'm not interested in getting into that. Last training camp/preseason was the only game action in which we got to see Ricky play. People claim he sucked or wasn't good enough to beat out Palko. What people don't remember was what the kind of QB he was when his offensive line gave him time to throw. Not much time, either. These were 7 step drops with only about 3 seconds to look off the safety and fire. He was pretty composed under the pocket, never panicked, and when he had defenders immediately up in his grill after the snap, he actually kept the play alive. Shocking to see that in a QB. Given his steady and sharp improvement in his career at Iowa and a full NFL offseason with the playbook and coaches, he's going to improve even more. I'd bet a lot that he'll look good in training camp, enough for the average football fan from any team to say, "He could make a stupendous #2 QB on my team." That's optimistic. Probably too optimistic for many of you. Which is why you shouldn't even consider speculation about how good he is when getting on board with this idea. So here's what I'm thinking: We've agreed Cassel is crap, yes? We've also assumed Orton and/or Flynn would not be on this roster next year. This is MY thought experiment folks; if you want to picture Orton or Flynn as members of the Chiefs, go start your own thread. So we'll draft a QB or sign Henne/Derek Anderson/Sucky McSuck QB as Cassel's "competition" most likely to round out the squad. Okay. Are you guys really thinking they're that much better? If you are, you're probably citing the fact that Cassel got us to the playoffs in 2010 on the legs of Charles, and that he has certainly demonstrated enough that if leashed hard, he can take care of the ball, be patient, and let defense/special teams make plays and throw well after the rest of our machine has some momentum. You're probably asking why we should risk interceptions, team morale, and entire games on a guy who (although through no fault of his own) has proven nothing yet in his first full year in the league. You're also sick of the people who aren't thinking this through clearly, and are loudly bitching because Pioli doesn't run this team like a Madden franchise. I'll address your concerns here. The reasons why Stanzi should start: 1. Future QB development- The current model is to be patient. We may not have a shot at a blue-chip QB in this year's draft, but that shouldn't stop us from looking at all QBs in every draft until we've found one. But with that process comes the issue of cluster**ing. If we draft Weeden/Cousins/Lindley/Whomever, we're not going to cut Stanzi, Cassel will still start, and we'll probably have one of those guys round out the 3rd string. Nothing wrong with that, except for knowing who the best QB is? How exactly does one run tryouts in a situation where the incumbent sucks and the other two guys have never proven anything? You start the incumbent I guess, but how do you know when these projects you've drafted are ready to go? And I mean either one? If you're serious about QB development and finding diamonds in the rough, you simply can't draft QBs just to ing collect them. They're not beanie babies. You're giving them good workouts and exposure in the offseason, but that's not enough if they just rot on the bench. And as backups, if Cassel gets injured or needs to take a hike midway through the season, what's the rule for patience? Clearly if they put up a Palko performance they should be ditched for the next guy. What if they play at the level of Cassel? They're young dudes. They need time to get used to starting, right? Isn't there something to be said for game-to-game improvement? 2. Roster cycling- So you've got your GM looking for hidden talent in drafts and making phone calls in the free agent boards to find backups, team veterans, or more losers like Tyler Palko. Whatever. The point is, if you stick with what you know in Cassel even if it's uncomfortable, it doesn't really encourage development beyond the starter spot. Now, this wouldn't be a problem at all if we had a franchise QB set at the starting position. But we're trying to upgrade that spot, aren't we? Brett Favre can go through 10+ years and 10+ backups and that's totally fine. Here, our backup is a pretty crucial position. Think back to the cluster that was the Chiefs immediately after Trent Green. Huard was the shit veteran at the starting spot. When he goes down, your next in line is Brodie Croyle, which was good and hopeful and exciting until he couldn't be trusted to stay healthy. Wouldn't you rather know more about your backup QB? If Croyle had started, the season would not have been much different, but at least the second option is the familiar standby you can lean on when times get tough. By doing the same thing with Stanzi and Cassel, we can have "open" competition in camp. Stanzi would likely win. He'd start until he got injured or started being Palko. But AT LEAST you would know what's on the roster next offseason, and it would light a fire until Cassel's ass when he stepped back in. 3. I can't think of anything else, can you?** Sorry this last reason isn't much of a climax, but it's the only thing left. We held out the remote hope that Cassel could improve for three seasons. It hasn't happened. If we get to the playoffs, how is relying on the same skittishness against the Ravens, Jets, Texans, or other fierce defense going to change? Coaching? Maybe. But this team has changed since the 2010 season. We're so much more talented and improved now. It's painfully obvious that QB is the last missing piece. We didn't get one this offseason because we won too many games and didn't have the firepower to trade up. So game managing our way to another 8-8/9-7 season is going to change how? It's going to get us Landry Jones? Seriously? I'm not getting into the "QBs in the first round won't fall like Roethlisberger/Rodgers" debate. I've done it too many times. But it's absolutely foolish to think trying hard and taking the middle way is going to improve us. We either get good or we get bad. This middle way purgatory is going to keep us hoping and dreaming and wishing for a solution forever until we rebuild again. With Stanzi at the helm, it's a change. Positive or negative? Doesn't matter. At least we'd be going in a direction, and would finally have some answers about how to move on. I'm pretty sure I rambled and that there will be typos galore. This was kind of written through a single stream of consciousness. But if you can decipher it and agree with me, let's welcome the next starting QB of the Kansas City Chiefs: Ricky Stanzi.
Posts: 93,278

03-11-2012, 08:54 PM	#3
BigMeatballDave GBM 8-12-15 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Dayton, Oh. Casino cash: $10052154	If its a fair competition, he could beat out Cassel. __________________ 2015 Adopt-a-Chief: Tamba Hali
Posts: 59,997

03-11-2012, 08:55 PM	#4
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $2123447
Posts: 59,688

03-11-2012, 08:56 PM	#5
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $1030478	__________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 296,724

03-11-2012, 08:57 PM	#6
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-535936	Every one, get on board. The Stanzi express. If they can get Tebow to start in Denver, we can do it here.
Posts: 84,157

03-11-2012, 08:52 PM	#2
MGRS13 Veteran Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Home in KC Casino cash: $10074930	Jesus christ. First Manning now this shit again. cassel is our starting QB. Deal with it. Always has been the "plan". It sucks, but it is what it is.
Posts: 4,217

03-11-2012, 09:00 PM	#7
Bambi Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: New York City Casino cash: $10036993	If they start Stanzi we will probably end up with the #1 pick and I'd be all in for that.
Posts: 17,810

03-11-2012, 09:02 PM	#9
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-535936	That one gif is enough. Look at his qb'ing skills. Stands tall, good footwork, nice velocity on the deep ball. The guy literally did more in that one gif that Cassel has ever done.
Posts: 84,157

03-11-2012, 09:03 PM	#10
Okie_Apparition Banned Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: floatin cobwebs n the sky Casino cash: $10004900	Get the man a pepsi
Posts: 7,012

03-11-2012, 09:06 PM	#13
Rasputin Tip of the hat LIV Champs Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: ks Casino cash: $235421	I've never stop being on the start Stanzi bandwaggon. I think he can really do good and prove that he has what it takes to win in this league. __________________ "Those who don't believe in magic will never find it"
Posts: 56,907

03-11-2012, 09:11 PM	#15
bricks Hey Teacher! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: land of maple syrup Casino cash: $9732559	The diamond in the rough part, I think you gotta still draft a QB. At this point, you draft a QB to create competition on your roster. Best man wins the job. I kinda agree with Pioli there in a sense. But mainly to see who is the best amongst them all. I mean how else are you going to be able to determine what you have? You gotta experiment and try shit out first in order to discover? Thats, at least my theory. Thats all the Chiefs could do at this point. Sadly though, Im not so sure if Pioli will do that? He may give the job to Cassel? I hope he doesn't, but...? Im with you, I say give Stanzi a shot. Draft a QB as well whether its 1st, 2nd or 3rd round. Maybe the QB they draft is better than Stanzi? Maybe Stanzi is the next Tom Brady? Regardless, the only thing the Chiefs could do is experiment and hopefully find that guy. *Also, Im for signing Orton only if it means getting rid Cassel. But I know thats not going to happen. I don't want Orton if it means they are keeping Cassel. Because then I know thats a pussy move by the organization. It'll show that they are scared to give a young QB a chance. Signing Orton and keeping Cassel only gets in the way of finding that "young stud" at QB. I also think that since it seems that they are out of the Manning sweepstakes. they should do what they can to improve the rest of the team. Sign a NT. Maybe try to find another ILB? Upgrade the OL as well? Sign another RB, etc.
Posts: 5,513

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode