Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
... Not sure about the second part, though. Denver is a good example. Plummer, assuming he didn't go flaky, was capable of winning and getting a team into the playoffs. This didn't sway the Rat.
|
I would counter by saying that there are always variables that might affect a decision to draft an "elite" quarterback prospect. The mental stability of the current quarterback and/or the working relation between that quarterback and the coaching staff are just two of these.
It's conceivable, of course, that a team might use a high pick to draft a quarterback for developmental purposes. However, that's extremely unusual when the team actually believes they already have a guy with 8 to 10 years of solid leadership and winning left in him.
My point is this; why should the Chiefs (or any team, for that matter) draft a young quarterback if and when they honestly believe there's another guy out there who, A) Has already had NFL experience, B) Proven he can win, C) Has a good working relationship with the GM, D) Is a "known" quantity, and E) Is young enough to lead for the better part of a decade? Add the fact that, in our case, quarterback is just one of the positions of need since the team is full of holes on both sides of the ball, and you have yourself a ding dang answer as to why Pioli did what he did.
The problem we (Chiefs fans) have is that the vast majority of Carl's moves in player acquisition (since DT) turned out poorly. Carl was GM. Pioli is GM. Chiefs fans automatically assume that, if Pioli did something reminiscent of Carl, the results will be similar. It's understandable, but it's an example of cognitive dissonance. These are different circumstances merely because the participants are different.
FAX