It's not a huge, huge risk. It's just a risk. There are several things that have to happen for this Cassel trade to be considered a major failure:
1) Matt Cassel has to bust, which is possible, but he at least has some track record
2) Mark Sanchez has to be a top-flight QB--I think he'll be a decent QB, but there's still uncertainty and bust potential
3) Tyson Jackson has to be a bust--I really don't think this is going to happen

Because keep in mind this isn't just about Cassel vs. Sanchez. This is about Cassel + Jackson vs. Sanchez. If Cassel is a success, this is a good move, no questions asked. If Sanchez is a success and Cassel is not, then this trade is a huge bust; however, if Tyson Jackson ends up being a really good D-Linemen, then this trade only becomes slightly disappointing. If Sanchez is a bust, then this is a great trade for us.

When you look at it this way, there is little chance this trade ends up being a huge mistake.

I really enjoy it when people who don't have a freakin' clue post shit like they do.

Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful. I am of the opinion that you don't pass up the chance to draft a QB in the top 5 without a really damn good reason. I'm such a believer in the importance of QBs that if Cassel doesn't win a championship then I wouldn't find the trade to be worth it.

I suppose some of this depends on what the criterion for "success" is.

This

Damn you have a short memory, quit underestimating Brodie Croyle.

Htis, I think what the other folks are trying to describe is opportunity cost.

If you don't take Sanchez, you're missing out on the oppotunity to gain the benefit of his employment with the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that's what the other guys are after.

There is an arguement of risk with opportunity costs. If we don't take him, then we risk losing his potential production. It's all a matter of what if's but it's just like anything in the financial world. If you think there is a certain percentage chance you can make a yield a quantified amount, that becomes your opportunity cost. I believe the same can be said about football players. By not taking him, you risk losing his potential production, whatever you have projected that to be.

So, you would have held Sanchez to the same standards, I'm sure

Wouldn't you?

Top 3 QB? At least an AFC Championship, minimum.

This. And good job.

But there's the rub; you CAN'T discuss Cassel and his risk because if you do, some hyper-defensive, pickle-puffing TF will come along and post one of five hundred varieties of "you're just mad because we didn't take Sanchez".

And let me tell you; that's shit's getting old.

I know and have accepted who the Quarterback of this team is. My expectations are for him to lead this team to 5 wins in 2009. I'm NOT being unreasonable.
And if you can't take a joke about Pioli or Cassel, you need to go the nearest Western Outfitter and buy yourself some animal hide to provide your obviously missing skin.

no, not necessarily. See, I realize that this is a team game and a QB can be great and never win a Super Bowl. This argument that the only QBs who are worth a shit won a Super Bowl is so far overblown on this board, IMO.

I can cede to this terminology, as this is the crux of what I was getting at.

I don't agree for a few reasons:
-If Sanchez isn't a top 10 QB in 4-5 years, then the Chiefs made a great trade regardless of whether Cassel succeeds, assuming Jackson ends up being a solid Defensive Lineman (which I think he's a pretty low-risk player).
-I think this is a clear case of a different bar being set for a first round pick versus a late-round pick. You're basically suggesting that if Cassel ends up being a better QB than Sanchez, but isn't a championship QB, then it's a worthless trade? What I find interesting about that is that I think that if we drafted Sanchez and he never won us a Super Bowl but won us a few playoff games, people would hesitate to call it a wasted pick. I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but Cassel deserves to be measured by the same standard as Sanchez.

Where I do agree is that we need to place a heavier weight on the Cassel vs. Sanchez battle. For example, if Sanchez is much better than Cassel, but Tyson Jackson becomes a pro bowler, the Chiefs still lose. However, I believe that if Sanchez is only slightly better than Cassel, but Jackson becomes a very good pro, then the Chiefs still win out.

Sure, the expectation is a championship if you draft a QB that high. Anything less is a major disappointment. Definitely.

Though -- and here is where I probably differ -- if that QB were to not deliver a championship, then I'd still think the draft pick was worth it. The team took their shot at a big-time prospect and sometimes that move doesn't work out. I don't have the same tolerance for a QB that was traded for.

Sanchez vs. Cassel is a false comparison that's been set up as if it actually means something.

With the exception of Tom Brady & Brad Johnson, high first round QB's (if not #1 overall) have won the Super Bowl this decade.

Regardless of what you think, the NFL has become such a level playing field that for the most part (exception being the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs), stellar play at the QB position is what separates good teams from Super Bowl teams.

If you don't have a high first round draft pick, your chance of winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL is greatly diminished.