I know this sounds fucked up, but given the fact that we will suck balls next year anyway, why not just sign Culpepper to a 1-year deal? If we get Ellis, Dorsey, or Gholston in the first round, and our line is still a weak link (even with a second round LT or RT), it would be nice to have a pretty big guy back there who can absorb a piss pounding if Brodie snaps.

Honestly that's not a bad idea at all.
We can't go into the season with three young guys at QB.
We need a veteran backup in the fold.

A Leftwich, Losman, Pennington, Culpepper... Huard...
Has to be at the right price though.

Later DownField BigGame.... Your fetal position will be missed by the opponents defense's.

Eh. We aren't going to win more than 6 games in 2008 anyway so we might as well dump all of the old guys. Gonzalez is the only older player we should retain, and even that is mostly for sentimental reasons.

We won 4 games last year with the vets. If that is the best the vets have to offer then there is no need to retain them.

If we release huard maybe the vikes will pick him up

I'd prefer it if Huard was caned.

The problem is we don't develop a QB going that route.

Imagine how much more interesting "Hard Knocks" would be if they were in camp this coming season instead of last....

This is good, Chiefs need to bring in a quarterback that will bring competion for Croyle.

Ya,
It's not like T.G. contributes or anything...:rolleyes:

Absolutely. Gift-wrapping the job for him will not work.
They've tried it once.

goodbye DaMOn-thanks for the INTs and fumbles

I thought Croyle was our young QB. What does having a legit vet B/U hurt?

Croyle is in the running, but I sure as Hell wouldn't annoit him the starter. I'd definitely draft a QB. Going that route, you don't want to impede any player's growth. Signing Culpepper just delays any progress of more youthful players by taking reps away.