Why I do not favor going QB with the #3 overall.
 

It's not that I don't love Sanchez and Stafford. I do -- especially Sanchez.

My major issue, aside from the fact that it would mean the Chiefs picking up QB with their 1st and 2nd round picks from this Draft, is Cassell.

I don't know if Cassell is the stud that he was in New England, but he probably isn't. He's a game manager, and he's a pretty tough one at that. I don't think he can win games by the pure force of his will, but he won't be the reason the Chiefs lose many games, either. He's a conservative choice.

And, well, I believe he'll succeed conservatively. I don't think he'll ever put up Pro Bowl numbers for us, but I do think he'll be a safe option at QB who can be ensured to be careful with the ball and not wilt under pressure.

I don't want a rookie stud behind him because the rookie will waste away there. Cassell may, in all likelihood, remain perfectly healthy. It will be unlikely that we ever have to play our rookie for an extended amount of time as Cassell sort-of flourishes in that Cassell-like way.

Can you see ANY NFL team abandon a sure, safe option at QB for an unknown? I can't. Not even Pioli.

Which in all likelihood means we will allow this rookie to rot on the bench, or we'll trade him away -- and if we trade him away, what are the odds we end up with a Top 5 pick? Next to zero. Lost value, for nothing.

If you see Cassell crashing and burning, than Sanchez makes sense. But if you're like me, and you see him simply play well but never spectacularly, I doubt we'll ever make the most out of our #3 overall QB.

Why I do favor it:

If Cassell meets or exceeds expectations, the Chiefs can trade him for a king's ransom in 2 years when the rookie is ready.


I don't think there's any chance it happens.

Why I do favor it:

Potential Franchise QB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> game manager.

You honestly think the Chiefs will get better than the 34th overall pick for him in two years?

Possibly, look how many QB starved teams there are and the spread fixation that is taking over college.

They could get better than that THIS year.

As long as he doesn't sustain a serious injury, or has a Derek Anderson-like collapse, there's no doubt in my mind that some team(s) would be willing to give up a mid/late first for him.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the Patriots did with Bledsoe and Brady?

Chargers did it.

Will? I don't know. Can? Absolutely. I mean, seriously, if he was worth the 34th pick after 15 games as a starter, imagine what he'd bring with two more successful years under his belt. He has any degree of success and he'll bring multiple picks including a first rounder. We're talking about a 29-year old quarterback, barely into his prime...

Again, I have no idea how he'll play, and I'm not making any kind of prediction; this is just a possible scenario.

Not at all.

Well, it was a sincere question, so please elaborate.

Whoops.

I want a QB the other team has to game plan around. Game managers aren't that guy. If you believe Stafford or Sanchez are gonna be studs, and they're there when you pick, you take them.

With the lack of QB classes on the horizon Cassels value will go up if he plays well.

Someone said Pioli isn't going to abandon the safe option at QB. You said the Pats did it with Brady and Bledsoe. They didn't. Brady didn't get a shot until Bledsoe was bleeding to death on the field. Brady led them to the Super Bowl. They didn't abandon the safe option. The safe option got injured.

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic.

I really want to know what makes the two situations so different.