Sorry, a 5 year player that was suppose to be a "known commodity" does not get the same grading scale a rookie QB does.

Matt Cassel is the same age Roethlisberger is, ponder that.

I don't see how it can be explained any better then this.

What's your point? Does Cassel having a bad season himself somehow take Sanchez's bad performance off the books or something?

That's a different argument all together. Sanchez did have the advantage of playing with the top ranked defense and top running game which Cassell did not. Based on the numbers Cassell was marginally better this year then Sanchez. Sanchez had the situation advantage, Cassell had the advantage of having a full season under his belt.

My opinion frankly is Cassell will have to be dropped into a situation similar to what Sanchez has to have any post season success in his career. I'm hoping he is just the transition guy and we make a move on Bradford or another QB this year.

He was worse than Sanchez...Sanchez performed like a rookie QB which he was, Cassel performed like a rookie QB while supposedly having experience.

But if you want to tell yourself that you'd rather have Matt Cassel and Tyson Jackson and that's better for the teams future by all means whatever it takes to make you feel better.

Ok so you are essentially admitting that trading for Matt Cassel was incredibly stupid?

Yeah, not sure how this came into the mix.

That was the decision, you do realize if you dropped Sanchez into this QB class he'd be the top ranked one right?

I wouldn't say that. They gave up a 2nd round pick for the guy. If he is just the transition QB and they plan on developing someone pretty quick then I think it was an okay move. The fact that his contract was front loaded makes me tend to believe that MIGHT be there thinking, the fact that they didn't take a QB or make a play for a young backup last year tells me different. If they put all the eggs in his basket then yes, it was probably a mistake, if they have a good contingent plan in place then I can live with it.

If you are saying they traded for a transition QB while having a top 5 pick in position to draft one....that makes it incredibly stupid.

I forgot this is KC we don't need a QB.

Apparently I need to repeat myself.So wait, saying Sanchez had a horrible rookie season is saying I'd rather have Matt Cassel and Tyson Jackson?

Well, gee, thanks for clearing that up for me, Great Karnak!I can't talk for him, but I'll say trading for Cassel was stupid.

And I'll also say that Sanchez had a horrible rookie season.

Because neither fact has anything to do with the other.

That's what I'm saying. I'm not someone who believes every comment about one has to be somehow inextricably linked to the other. At the end of the day I still don't want Cassel and I still wouldn't have given up a top-5 pick for Sanchez. Stafford? Sure.

I still wish we'd found a way to get Ryan. I think he'll be better than all of them.

I don't even think his rookie season was that bad, but this is KC, where people hate QB's and all that jazz.

This time of year is especially when it comes out.

That's impossible to predict because we don't know what would have happened at USC this year. Maybe he gets hurt or struggles. He was behind Bradford last year before Bradford decided to come back so I would say he would probably be #2 maybe #3 if he came out and nothing too crazy happened this year. Either way he is a top 3 guy, but apparently the Chiefs did not feel like he was what they wanted in a franchise QB if they were looking to draft one. It's too early to tell, but he struggled more then Ryan and Flacco did last year, although Sanchez was also a year younger.

It's true, but that's not saying much. I hate this class at the top of the QB list.

With that said, we will see 1 or 2 superstars come from this class, but they will be the sleeper prospects, not the 1st round guys.

I keep hearing that, but hate QB jazz, but I for one would love to have Bradford or a young QB. I just think most people are resigned to the fact we probably won't take one, although it would be a brillant move IMO.

Disagree with that, on draft forums, NFLDC I will use as the example it was asked if they all declare where do they rank and Scott Wright said Sanchez was ahead of Bradford.

All things considered, Sanchez in prospect terms was ahead of Bradford and Clausen.

I don't think Bradford is going to be any better than an ok QB, I don't see any major upside.

But you know what I'm referring to we're a team that hasn't drafted a QB in the first round in nearly 30 years and the idea of it still makes half the fan base shit their pants.

All the ones I saw last year had Bradford #1 overall, before going back.

The guy's protected not only by the league's best defense but the league's best rushing attack, yet he completes less than 54% of his passes and tosses 20 picks on barely over 350 pass attempts. I'm sorry, but that's bad any way you slice it.

Matt Ryan's or Joe Flacco's performance from 2008 is what you want. Not Sanchez or Stafford in 2009. They were both bad. There's no real way to defend either of them.

He is amazingly accurate, which means a lot. I watched Cassell miss so many open guys this year that I know Bradford would of hit right on the money although it probably would have been dropped anyways.

Stafford got dumped into a shit pyle of a team. That can be defended. I'm not sold on him, but I'm not sure Manning wins 5 with that group.

And Joe Flacco pissed his pants in the playoffs, Mark Sanchez didn't. I'll be the first one to say I wouldn't have started Sanchez right away, he was a 1 year college starter, I didn't consider him a ready to go from day 1 prospect, so he's going to have growing pains, Matt Ryan for example started about almost 30 more games in college.

Those sites that had Bradford going first were just looking at his stats and hadn't done the offseason looks, Stafford was always the top QB, followed by Sanchez with Bradford coming in just after that, now if they all had come out they probably all go top 10 though.

Bradford has to many questions for me, it's hard to judge accuracy of a guy who plays in the spread system and gets to throw to guys who are running wide open.

This is where you do yourself a disservice. Not wanting your chosen guy doesn't mean people don't want anybody. And it doesn't mean they're stupid. Or that they're homers. It just means that they have a difference of opinion.

Like I've probably dozens of times in the last year, I wouldn't have taken Sanchez high, because he was a junior (risky enough on its own) with one year as a starter. That's too many red flags for the top 5. If we were picking at the bottom of the round I'd have been more open to it. Either way, that doesn't mean I don't want a QB. I would have taken Stafford had he been there. I would have taken Ryan had he been there the year before. I might take Clausen this year, although to be honest there's something about him that just seems off to me. But I imagine Weis knows him better than anybody, so if they somehow did decide to pull the trigger on him, I'd imagine I'd be okay with it.

And I never in a million years would have traded for Cassel. That whole thing had 'disaster' written all over it from the start. I hope it works out in the end, I really do, but I never would have done it.

That the biggest misconception is that their guys are always wide open. Go back and watch the Florida game again and the game he played this year before getting hurt. He was sqeezing the ball in tight spots, the WR's just couldn't hang on. I don't worry much about the spread, since the NFL uses it so much anyways.

The guy is accurate and I believe that's something you can't teach. Everything else he can learn.

It's not just Sanchez, how many people argued against Ryan, against the guys this year, against whoever the QB we thought we'd have a chance to pick was?

At the time of the draft the QB is never good enough no matter who it is, Stafford was railed endlessly until it was realized he was going before us and then it turned to Sanchez.

It's about that position not Sanchez.

You should be worried because he'll have to learn how to properly take center snaps and drop back.

You know what else you can't teach? Durability, this is a guy who never got hit and as soon as he got hit, he got hurt.

That's exactly why I wouldn't have taken him in the top-5...

I think the real issue here is that there really doesn't seem to be a whole lot to pick from at QB in the draft these days. Maybe that's the impact of the spread, maybe it's an issue of talent and we're just in a rut. The fact that we're debating about the worth of a one-year college starter is pretty telling, I think, paired with the fact that we're debating about the worth of a guy who missed virtually the entire last season with an injury.

Them's slim pickin's...

It's because people think we can aquire one a different way which is possible (Romo, Warner). I think half the QB's in the playoffs were 1st round picks though, so of course that is the safer bet. I'm with you on that one bro. If one is there that you like pull the trigger. We should have a shot at one of them this year. If they like him do it.

That position scares people for some reason, I love when the "it'll set us back 5 years if he's not good" argument is brought out, cause you know we've really been accomplishing a lot doing it this way for nearly 30 right?

That's always been a lame argument. Missing on any high draft pick can set you back years, whether it's a QB or a DT. Chiefs fans should know that better than most, with the franchise's record at 1st and 2nd round picks from about '93 onward. Busts can kill you regardless, and (as we know...) multiple busts are almost impossible to recover from. These guys are supposed to be the stars you build around, regardless of where they play. The idea that there are "safe" picks is a mirage.

I don't know why. It's not like we have been burnt doing it. San Diego and Cinci kept pulling the trigger and it paid off for both of them, at least before Palmer's injury.

He can learn to drop back. 1/2 the time he throws will probably be out the gun anyways.

Durability worries me a bit. He needs to learn to avoid the big hits like Peyton manages to do.

Peyton's not a fragile ass QB. He's started every single game for the Colts since he was drafted.

Yeah, he avoids big hits, but he's also not Brodie Croyle.

To me, if you want Bradford, I'd say we've already got him on our roster.

I can't ever really remember him taking a big hit. Not saying he is chicken shit at all, he is very good at avoiding the hits. You never see him take shots like Favre takes.

Yeah yeah, I've heard the Brodie comparisons before. I don't see it. Brodie has a stronger arm and isn't as accurate.

True. And Brodie also ran a pro offense in college.

If he had been drafted by the Chiefs, the smart thing would have been to let him sit for a year.

Something many of us were saying should be done when we hoped he would be the pick before the trade for Cassel.

I don't get why that is so hard for some dumbasses to grasp.

You'r eone of the more reasnable posters.

However, mecca is right, overall, about the KCfan aversion to drafting QB.

As the colege season progressed in '08, the Stafford detractors were too numerous to count on here.

When it became apparent that we would not have the opportunity to select him, those detractors suddenly became Satfford supporters.

Sit behind who? Croyle? How long would that have lasted 3 weeks?

Sit behind the shorter Matt Cassel and Croyle.