Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud
You know, I didn't want to get involved in this "Sanchez vs. Cassel" thing but here goes:
The reason why there is so much risk involved in passing on Sanchez is simple: Pedigree.
Sanchez was the number one high school recruit the year he came out. He practiced and played in a pro-style offense at USC for four years. He started 16 games for one of the best teams in that nation, bar none and put up stellar numbers. Had it not been for false rape allegations, he'd have had two years under his belt and would have undoubtedly gone number one overall.
Cassel on the other hand hadn't played started since high school. He spent four years on the bench at USC and three years on the bench at New England. He was a 7th round draft pick that barely even made number two QB over Matt Gutierrez in August 2008. He started 15 games in the NFL for the best team in the league and don't fool yourself, if Tom Brady hadn't gone down in game one, there would have been a different Super Bowl champion in 2008.
So, if I'm looking at my QB of the future, do I go with the guy that has an excellent pedigree and is coming off an phenomenal performance in a bowl game or do I go with the guy that's 5 years older and has only played in 15 games in 8 years.
In my mind, it's a no brainer. And since the Chiefs passed on the guy with the greater pedigree, there is certain and absolute risked involved in that decision.
|
I don't at all disagree. But it's all in the past now. What's wrong with HOPING that Cassel can be the franchise QB we need? Does passing on Sanchez sting so much that people can't get over it?
Pretty ****ing laughable if you ask me.