Live chat with Babb at 11:30 today...

[Coogs]

http://www.kansascity.com/coveritlive/

In case any of you have any questions we would all like answered.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Iowa's on ESPN all the time, man. Pretty sure I watched him play more than twice.

His picks are part of the reason I put him in the McElroy category.

I called him Ricky Cassel heading into the draft, because I thought that's the kind of player he would have to be at the pro level: heavily constrained in the confines of a safe system to have any success. So the only way I could ever see him playing at this level was in a strictly controlled manager role. He was not somebody that I would expect (or want) to try and carry a pro team. He's not Stafford or Ryan or even Dirty Sanchez. And I would guess that scouts agreed with that assessment, since he was ultimately drafted where he was.

I think if he was a sure-fire stud the way that some Iowa fans seem to believe that he was, he would not have been drafted in the fifth round. And "second tier Big 10 school (which Iowa is not anymore, they're one of the better teams in the league now)" would not be a reason for that fall, since QBs from no-name schools, who couldn't even hope to be in the same class as Iowa, regularly get drafted early now.

I'm in full agreement here

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Iowa's on ESPN all the time, man. Pretty sure I watched him play more than twice.

His picks are part of the reason I put him in the McElroy category.

I called him Ricky Cassel heading into the draft, because I thought that's the kind of player he would have to be at the pro level: heavily constrained in the confines of a safe system to have any success. So the only way I could ever see him playing at this level was in a strictly controlled manager role. He was not somebody that I would expect (or want) to try and carry a pro team. He's not Stafford or Ryan or even Dirty Sanchez. And I would guess that scouts agreed with that assessment, since he was ultimately drafted where he was.

I think if he was a sure-fire stud the way that some Iowa fans seem to believe that he was, he would not have been drafted in the fifth round. And "second tier Big 10 school (which Iowa is not anymore, they're one of the better teams in the league now)" would not be a reason for that fall, since QBs from no-name schools, who couldn't even hope to be in the same class as Iowa, regularly get drafted early now.

Good post.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

That is quite possibly the dumbest statement of 2012. Backup of the future? What the hell is that?

the dumber thing would be to suggest that he was the QBOTF

[keg in kc]

I do want to reiterate that I am not saying that Stanzi can't ever or won't ever be a starter. I'm just laying out my assessment of him heading into the last draft, and outlining why I think it's not likely. But players do sometimes exceed our expectations. We watched one throw 6 TD on Saturday (and speaking as a Michigan fan who watched most if not all of Brady's college starts, I never expected him to be one of the best of all time...) and I sincerely hope Stanzi ends up being one of those.

Because the Chiefs need something like that to happen. And they need it desperately.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

His picks are part of the reason I put him in the McElroy category.

Not to overplay his flaws, but recklessness with the ball and a propensity to press and throw picks is the opposite of game manager, right?

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I called him Ricky Cassel heading into the draft, because I thought that's the kind of player he would have to be at the pro level: heavily constrained in the confines of a safe system to have any success.

Well, I have to disagree there. They let him open it up quite a bit his senior season and he did pretty well in protecting the ball while continuing to push it downfield. The comparison to Cassel is laughable.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

So the only way I could ever see him playing at this level was in a strictly controlled manager role. He was not somebody that I would expect (or want) to try and carry a pro team. He's not Stafford or Ryan or even Dirty Sanchez. And I would guess that scouts agreed with that assessment, since he was ultimately drafted where he was.

He's inferior to Stafford all around and superior to Sanchez where it matters, intangibles.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think if he was a sure-fire stud the way that some Iowa fans seem to believe that he was, he would not have been drafted in the fifth round. And "second tier Big 10 school (which Iowa is not anymore, they're one of the better teams in the league now)" would not be a reason for that fall, since QBs from no-name schools, who couldn't even hope to be in the same class as Iowa, regularly get drafted early now.

I never said he was a sure-fire stud. In fact, I never suggested he could guaranteed be a full-time starter in this league.

However, labeling him a game manager or career backup before he's EVER taken a regular season snap is ridiculous.

[TimeForWasp]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

the dumber thing would be to suggest that he was the QBOTF

It's funny, every time I see QBOTF , I think of somebody that drives a Delorian.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

However, labeling him a game manager or career backup before he's EVER taken a regular season snap is ridiculous.

If projecting what you think a draft pick might be in the NFL is ridiculous, than all of us are ridiculous all the time every April.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

If projecting what you think a draft pick might be in the NFL is ridiculous, than all of us are ridiculous all the time every April.

You know what I mean, Kyle. You've written the guy off without giving him any chance to prove otherwise.

What kind of logic is that, especially when this team DESPERATELY needs a QB? Not saying he's Tom Brady (because he's obviously not) but Brady had similar concerns coming out and look where he ended up. If everybody had given up on him, we'd have missed seeing one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Stanzi played at a 2nd-tier Big 10 school and all he did was put together one of the most successful 2-season stints in the history of the school.

You know I have a ton of respect for you and your football takes, but if you honestly saw him a "fair bit" and were never all the impressed, I have to question what the hell you were looking for.

I was always very impressed with Stanzi.

Here's the kicker. QBs who fall to the 5th round usually have a significant fatal flaw. Character. Physical limitations (too short, weak arm, etc...). Dumb as a box of rocks. No big game / tough competition experience.

Stanzi had none of those red flags. He played in a competitive conference, has the size, arm strength and accuracy, and is a good leader.

32 teams said despite no flags, he's not good enough. That worries me more than just a little bit. There is most definitely some fatal flaw scouts saw in him for him to fall that low.

[BossChief]

Stanzi is more Favre than game manager.

Also, nobody ever said Stanzi is a sure fire great player.

I started the thread at the quarter mark of last year asking who would spend a late second rounder on him. Nobody ever advocated him as a first rounder.

All I'm saying is that he is every bit deserving of a shot as any quarterback to come out last year.

Did he fall to the start of the 5th? Yes

Did multiple draftniks say he has a chance to be the best quarterback out of this class? Yes

It's beyond foolish that he hasn't played yet when everybody that did play is unlikely to return.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You know what I mean, Kyle. You've written the guy off without giving him any chance to prove otherwise.

What kind of logic is that, especially when this team DESPERATELY needs a QB? Not saying he's Tom Brady (because he's obviously not) but Brady had similar concerns coming out and look where he ended up. If everybody had given up on him, we'd have missed seeing one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

Dude, I think you missed my post immediately above your next-to-last one.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I do want to reiterate that I am not saying that Stanzi can't ever or won't ever be a starter. I'm just laying out my assessment of him heading into the last draft, and outlining why I think it's not likely. But players do sometimes exceed our expectations. We watched one throw 6 TD on Saturday (and speaking as a Michigan fan who watched most if not all of Brady's college starts, I never expected him to be one of the best of all time...) and I sincerely hope Stanzi ends up being one of those.

Because the Chiefs need something like that to happen. And they need it desperately.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Dude, I think you missed my post immediately above your next-to-last one.

I sure did!

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I was always very impressed with Stanzi.

Here's the kicker. QBs who fall to the 5th round usually have a significant fatal flaw. Character. Physical limitations (too short, weak arm, etc...). Dumb as a box of rocks. No big game / tough competition experience.

Stanzi had none of those red flags. He played in a competitive conference, has the size, arm strength and accuracy, and is a good leader.

32 teams said despite no flags, he's not good enough. That worries me more than just a little bit. There is most definitely some fatal flaw scouts saw in him for him to fall that low.

I'm a firm believer that EVERYTHING that was viewed as a flaw in his game is coachable.

He was seen as a quarterback that didn't have the arm strength to push the ball downfield in the NFL. Thing is, Zorn is probably the first premier position coach he has had. I could see the ball coming out of his hand better and with more zip than while at Iowa and that was only after a few short weeks of work.

He also made some mistakes early in games that put his team in holes.

Almost half of his picks came in the first quarter of his games on average. Half. He only threw 4 interventions last year and 3 of those came in the first quarter of games. That was likely viewed as a serious red flag to pro scouts and will definitely be something he needs to work on if he wants to stick as the starter once given a chance.

A lot of his picks came from forcing the ball and were thrown with lazy mechanics...he threw a few pick 6s that came off his back foot. Again, coachable faults in his game.

It's just totally tragic he didn't get a chance last year.

[Easy 6]

Kent, ya know i love ya... thats why i'm going to kill you... before you do your reputation any more serious damage.

Stick with Cassel? hey! go out into that field, i left a bundle of money out there... no, a little farther, nope keep going... *click, BOOM*

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by BossChief

It's just totally tragic he didn't get a chance last year.

This is assuming that he wasn't given the chance to earn the job during the season and failed to do so. Is that a safe assumption to make?

Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm too trusting, but I'd tend to think that had he shown anything to the staff during the regular season on the practice field, he'd have gotten his shot. Especially with Palko out there shitting all over the field. And while I always take rumors with a hefty grain of salt, I have heard on a couple of different occasions from a couple of different sources that they were not entirely satisfied with Stanzi's development in 2011.

So maybe it's not a situation of him not being given a chance, maybe it's a situation of him not taking the job, when it was right there for him.

Which would also be a tragedy, of course...

But who knows.