Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRock
They didn't, though. For Pioli, trading for Cassel is FAR more of a risk than drafting a rookie.
Pioli has put it all on the line with this move. He has to be right that Cassel will be better, or at least just as good, as Stafford and Sanchez. And someone will say we never had a shot at Stafford, but nobody knew if he was going #1 back when the Cassel trade went down. By making the trade, Pioli passed on both rookie QBs. He had to think Cassel was a better option than both of them.
If Pioli is wrong, and he couldn't get a proper read on a QB who was right there in the Pats' system for 3-4 years, he will have shattered his credibility with the Chiefs fanbase with his very first roster decision. That's a big-time roll of the dice.
The only thing that even remotely makes Cassel "safe" is that his track record (one season in a proven system with an all-galaxy WR to throw to) makes him slightly less of a risk than a rookie with no track record at all. But that's practically splititng hairs. Some people act like we traded for Bledsoe or Pennington, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Cassel is nowhere close to a guarantee on the field. Trading for him was a huge gamble by Pioli in terms of credibility and reputation. I have never understood the notion that Cassel somehow represents the safter path.
If he busts, it's game over.
|
I agree with 90% of what you've stated here. Well done.
The disagreement lies in the fact that you've denied the fact that Cassel isn't the "safer" choice. The only reason he is considered "safer" is that he's been in the NFL for four full seasons and he's played in 16 games (with 15 starts).
In many people's eyes (and I daresay, the
overwhelming majority of Chiefsplanet members), he's safer than Stafford or Sanchez because neither have played in the NFL.
Which IMO, is a
ridiculous argument. But you're right.
If Cassel busts, so does Pioli.