Only if you like Sanchez or Freeman because those are the only guys we passed on.

Not really, he would have gotten the money one way or another from the Pats or another team..

It is WORTH it to try it out for a year.. If we/he fail with the experiment we are only on the hook for the year..

And maybe they were not enamored with Sanchez or Stafford?? Pay more money to those two or less to Cassell for one year to see if it works??

I wasn't aware that the word risk implied that. In fact, I'm going to disagree with you that risk necessarily implies the threat of loss.

1.) You're not making a point, just stating the obvious.

2.) This isn't even connected to what I posted. "Not liking" a player doesn't eliminate the potential of being wrong concerning that player.

But what if they were RIGHT on Cassel and those players??

If that's your argument then every team risks being wrong every draft pick they make or don't make. They risk being wrong with every free agent they sign or don't sign.

Come on, be honest. This is just another roundabout way for someone to bitch and moan because the Chiefs didn't take Mark Sanchez.

If i was the GM for the Chiefs i would of drafted Sanchez at #3 after i couldn't trade down. Imo it's better to overspend on a QB than a non-Quarterback sacking DE. I would of drafted Sanchez and then tried to put the screwed to the Jets or the Redskins for a trade and if not it would of provided a QBoTF for Cassell to train in his 1 year as a Chief.

But they didn't draft Sanchez so it's time to move on. Get over it.

Uh, isn't this true?

If not, what about it is false?

If I'm not mistaken, it's the job of the organization TO make the right decisions.

Not just a decision.

It's a negotiation. If it weren't for the Chiefs, he wouldn't even be in a position to be a starting QB, he'd be a backup in New England collecting $14M just like he'll get here. And if he won't agree to a long-term deal because he wants more money, we tag him.

The WORST case is that he plays like shit and we need to dump him. The scenario you're so against is FAR MORE PALATABLE than locking him up now and having him SUCK.

So take a look in the mirror before you throw out the word "fools".

The number 1 definition in the dictionary:

exposure to the chance of injury or loss

You can't lose something you don't have. If Sanchez turns out to be great, we're not out anything, regardless of how you want to look at it.

You can't risk something you don't have. They made a decision.

Right or wrong, it's not a RISK, just a decision.

I fully disagree.

If you have a chance to sign or draft a player but don't, you're taking a risk.

If you sign or draft a player, you're taking a risk.

Either way, it's a risky business.

Do I or don't I?

Those that take the correct risks are those that own Super Bowl trophies.

Getting a little hacky there, Clark.

Then they were right. And all will be good in the world. I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

Well, sort of, I guess. Not really. The issue is only brought up because of the critical importance of the QB position. This was a team that really needed to address the QB position. If they hadn't traded for Cassel then I would have expected to see them draft a 1st round QB.

Not taking Mark Sanchez (and let's be honest, because that's entirely what this is about) is NOT taking a risk. Even if he turns out to be good in New York, that's not indicative of whether or not he would have been good here. There's too many variables at work.

We didn't give up anything to NOT draft him, therefore there's no risk. Now if you want to talk about Cassel and his risk, by all means. But there is no risk in not taking somebody. Zero.

But they did trade for Cassel, so obviously they feel it has been addressed.