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 don't think he'll "bust", and I've said already that he gives us a faster start out of the gate.
The question is; does he excel beyond game manager and give us a truly exceptional quarterback that you can absolutely count on to make something special happen when you desperately need it to happen?
Or are we looking at Green 2.0 as Stafford and/or Sanchez excel past that benchmark, assuming they can do so?