I'm aware of the history and don't deny it. I watch Sanchez and see a QB that isn't going to be plagued by the problems that most QBs with limited starts have. Sanchez' major strengths -- mechanics, footwork, "it" factor -- will almost ensure his ability to play NFL football at a high level.

It was possible that the Chiefs don't trade for Cassel and also pass on Sanchez, yes. It was possible that Pioli saw Thigpen and considered him a legit starting QB. It was possible that Pioli is a complete idiot unfit for running a team. He isn't, though.

I fear we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the "oppurtunity cost" issue because trying to understand your viewpoint is going to give me an aneurysm.

Everyone knows this. It goes without saying. They didn't leave because of people name-calling them back.

can't believe people still peddle this reeruned crap on the planet...

Meet JPB, SensibleChiefsfan, KCBubb and a slew of other n00bs...

I don't see the purpose in wishing we had Sanchez anymore. I wanted Stafford as bad as anyone, but the only way he'll ever make it to KC is if he sucks and we sign him as a backup. Same with Sanchez. David Carr and Joey Harrington are what these guys would have to be for us to have them now....

Lets roll with who we got.

My viewpoint can be boiled down to just a few words:

Saying we're [insert negative comment here] because we didn't draft Sanchez is ridiculous.

Unlike many others, I don't consider "game manager" to be an insult. The Steelers utilize their QB like one deliberately, and we don't really know how well Roethlisberger would function if he played outside that type of system for an entire season. I personally don't think he'd show himself to be in the Brady/P. Manning class. You seem to disagree. C'est la vie.

Evidently, the definition of franchise QB is now determined by whether or not you've won a Super Bowl.

Ben Roethlisberger is a good QB, but let's get real here - he's not going to carry a team when the chips are down. He needs a good running game and strong defense to do his thing. When the game is completely on him, more often than not, he doesn't get it done.

This. Ditto. Yep.

Yep.

That's why he only has 2 Super Bowl victories instead of 5.

Are you being sarcastic?

Yes, very.

Come on, Dude. Arguing that Rothlisberger isn't a Franchise QB? Are you serious?

Have you SEEN his shitty offensive line? Do you know just how much of a beating the guy has taken since entering the league?

Did you see his TD throw to win the Super Bowl?

I am just absolutely shocked that you'd argue otherwise.

He's a Man among boys out there and is every bit as responsible for their two Super Bowl wins as their defense.

So Super Bowls is now the measuring stick for QB's. Got it. Somebody might want to let Dan Marino know, but other than that, definition change noted.

And yes, I've seen his line. And I saw the pass (singular) he made in the Super Bowl. I've also seen him MANY times in regular season games WILT in the same circumstances.

It's obvious that the term "franchise" QB is subjective enough that Matt Cassel will NEVER qualify in some people's eyes, making further discussion on this topic moot.

Bitch on!

You know, I didn't want to get involved in this "Sanchez vs. Cassel" thing but here goes:

The reason why there is so much risk involved in passing on Sanchez is simple: Pedigree.

Sanchez was the number one high school recruit the year he came out. He practiced and played in a pro-style offense at USC for four years. He started 16 games for one of the best teams in that nation, bar none and put up stellar numbers. Had it not been for false rape allegations, he'd have had two years under his belt and would have undoubtedly gone number one overall.

Cassel on the other hand hadn't played started since high school. He spent four years on the bench at USC and three years on the bench at New England. He was a 7th round draft pick that barely even made number two QB over Matt Gutierrez in August 2008. He started 15 games in the NFL for the best team in the league and don't fool yourself, if Tom Brady hadn't gone down in game one, there would have been a different Super Bowl champion in 2008.

So, if I'm looking at my QB of the future, do I go with the guy that has an excellent pedigree and is coming off an phenomenal performance in a bowl game or do I go with the guy that's 5 years older and has only played in 15 games in 8 years.

In my mind, it's a no brainer. And since the Chiefs passed on the guy with the greater pedigree, there is certain and absolute risked involved in that decision.

Wilt? Excuse me?

And how does discussing Rothlisberger's "Franchise QB worthiness" equate to "bitching" about Matt Cassel?

I think you need a break, Dude.

I don't at all disagree. But it's all in the past now. What's wrong with HOPING that Cassel can be the franchise QB we need? Does passing on Sanchez sting so much that people can't get over it?

Pretty ****ing laughable if you ask me.