Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
They INVITED criticism by trading for a player that they've KNOWN INTIMATELY for 4 seasons.
Sanchez/Stafford could have some mental or emotional condition that there is no way of knowing about until they step on the field.
People would be pissed if we took a QB at #3 and he turned out to be a bust. But you're underestimating how they would react if the guy Pioli HAND-PICKED to be his starting QB somehow flames out.
I can't believe people have forgotten 2001 already.
|
#1) The people who were bashing Trent Green in 2001 were clueless. Given who his starting WR's were, and that the WR's were in flux constantly all season.... his interceptions were to be expected.
I think the level of play for Cassel to be successful is much less than if the Chiefs drafted a QB at #3.
If Cassel is merely a good game manager and a decent starter, most will consider the trade to be a success and good value.
If Stafford or Sanchez were taken at #3 and weren't absolute studs, then Pioli would be thrown under the bus. Especially if a guy like Curry goes on to have a Hall of Fame career.
I think Pioli has many ways to look good with the Cassel trade.
#1) If Sanchez is a total bust and he was the only one available.... Pioli will look good even if Cassel is also a bust.
#2) If the Chiefs draft a HOF player at #3, then Pioli will look good even if Cassel is a bust.
#3) If Cassel is merely a good game manager and they draft a great player at #3, Pioli looks great.
If Vrabel comes in and contributes for a couple years and is intrumental in turning around the defense.... then that can also help the view of this trade.
BUT, if the Chiefs drafted Sanchez at #3... then they are absolutely tied to whether that one pick becomes a franchise QB.
Oh, And, Cassel will start this year most likely. A rookie would be sitting on the bench for a couple years. The Chiefs will know much faster if Cassel is 'the' guy.