Chiefs This far in, would you say Cassel was the only option for the Chiefs? - Page 4

RedThat · 11-24-2009, 01:27 PM

I think so.

Really what could they have done to upgrade the QB position? Not much. They had no shot at Stafford, or, Matt Ryan from the previous year.

They were in range to draft Sanchez, but Id be more content with Cassel to this point since Sanchez is playing terrible.

What else could they have done? stick with Croyle or Thigpen? I was content when Thigpen was playing well, and thought we had some sort of chemistry, connection with Gailey's spread offense and Thigpen. But that all fell apart when the new regime took over.

I can't think of anything else? they could have traded up and try to get either Stafford or Ryan, but we know that would have been too costly. I guess he was the Chiefs best bet? Best thing is to just sit back, have some patience and wait for him to develop over time.

Coogs · 11-24-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedThat

They had no shot at Stafford, or, Matt Ryan from the previous year.

I don't want to open a huge can of worms, but they had a shot at both of these guys. The cost may have been expensive, but a trade up could have happened. IIRC, both the Fish and the Rams were looking for trade down partners leading up to the 2008 draft, and I am not so sure the Falcons would not have moved either if the "price was right". Same for last year. I bet the Lions would have listened if Clark would have offered up a deal to swap spots.

**The Franchise** · 11-24-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

Cassel was the best choice.... not the only one, but the best one.

The only franchise QB available in the draft was Stafford, and the price to get him was too high. Sanchez will be a very similar QB to Cassel down the road. They were both largely backups at USC.

Cassel is taller, and was only a second round draft pick.

And, Pioli knew him. He has proven to be as advertised. He is a tough, hardworking QB. And, despite coming from a great team to a poor team, he has continued to work hard, play hard, and actually give a d@mn.

Sanchez will be a Matt Hasselbeck kind of QB, which is fine, but about the same as Cassel will be.

I think in the end, the guys who were drooling over Sanchez will be dissapointed. And, the guys who think he is going to be a bust will be proven wrong.

He will be a decent, middle of the road QB. Which is what Cassel will be. So, why spend the #3 pick on a QB with similar talent, that the GM is less familiar with?

If they're both going to be decent middle of the road QBs.....then I'll take the one that is younger. You'll get more use out of him.

SenselessChiefsFan · 11-24-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Yep, I was a Ryanite, Staffordite, Sanchezite, basically any thing other than the road already traveled ite............

I understand the thinking.... but, I think that it is foolish to just want any rookie QB... just to have a rookie QB.

I understand wanting Stafford. I understand wanting Matt Ryan.

It will be interesting to see how it all goes.

SenselessChiefsFan · 11-24-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

If they're both going to be decent middle of the road QBs.....then I'll take the one that is younger. You'll get more use out of him.

I'll take the taller one who has proven that he is a hard worker that costs a much lower draft pick.

On a rebuilding team, I'll take the one from a winning organization that is a leader.

Also, Cassel and Sanchez both have about the same wear and tear on their bodies. There is only a 4.5 year difference between them.

And, an injury can completely end either of their careers. Cassel has eight years left. A lot can happen in eight years. Espcially since Pioli will likely draft a QB or two in the next eight years.

SenselessChiefsFan · 11-24-2009, 03:40 PM

Um... for the record, Matt Ryan is not having a 'great' year on a MUCH more talented offense. He has 500 more yards, but a VERY similar passer rating and twice as many INT's.

Again, not saying that Ryan isn't having a better year, but look at the WR's, RB... oh, and he has a pretty good TE down there too.

**Reaper16** · 11-24-2009, 03:40 PM

I'm sticking to what my position has been all along. I'm comfortable playing the long game.

**DaneMcCloud** · 11-24-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Those who wanted to select Sanchez were the ones giving shit?

Laz is a drooling Mongo.

Reerun_KC · 11-24-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I understand the thinking.... but, I think that it is foolish to just want any rookie QB... just to have a rookie QB.

I understand wanting Stafford. I understand wanting Matt Ryan.

It will be interesting to see how it all goes.

I didnt "just wanted to have a Rookie QB", I wanted to have a QB that you could build a franchise around for many years to come.... Someone that could give you 4-5 more years behind center.. Therefore "hopefully" increasing the chances to go to more superbowls...

Mr. Laz · 11-24-2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Those who wanted to select Sanchez were the ones giving shit?

hell yes ... anyone that even considering any other option than Sanchez got gang ****ed by a "group of 14"

**The Franchise** · 11-24-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

hell yes ... anyone that even considering any other option than Sanchez got gang ****ed by a "group of 14"

Which is better than being gang ****ed by the group of Aaron Curry lovers.

Reerun_KC · 11-24-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Which is better than being gang ****ed by the group of Aaron Curry lovers.

those guys are still wacking off to their Herm posters every night...

Mr. Laz · 11-24-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Which is better than being gang ****ed by the group of Aaron Curry lovers.

I think you're getting old, losing your memory.

They were called the "gang of 14" for a reason ... they were repeatedly the aggressors in every draft related subject. Period. Hell they had a mission statement, Attack everyone in site that doesn't agree.

the other day you tried to make Mecca the victim, now it's the "14". I guess you were a member ... and yes, i'm utilizing every meaning of the word.

Mr. Laz · 11-24-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

those guys are still wacking off to their Herm posters every night...

I hated herm and was open to the option of selecting Curry with our first pick. So where do i fit?

in fact, looking back I think Curry would of been a better selection then Jackson give our LB's

**The Franchise** · 11-24-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

I think you're getting old, losing your memory.

They were called the "gang of 14" for a reason ... they were repeatedly the aggressors in every draft related subject. Period. Hell they had a mission statement, Attack everyone in site that doesn't agree.

the other day you tried to make Mecca the victim, now it's the "14". I guess you were a member ... and yes, i'm utilizing every meaning of the word.

Yep...you got me there. I was saying that Mecca is a victim and everyone should just leave him alone.

I've seen a lot of worthwhile football opinions on this board. It just so happens that none of them have come from you.

Reerun_KC · 11-24-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

I hated herm and was open to the option of selecting Curry with our first pick. So where do i fit?

in fact, looking back I think Curry would of been a better selection then Jackson give our LB's

You dont need a reason to whack itm, you just whack it because it is yours and it is hand raised?

11-24-2009, 01:27 PM
RedThat Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Earth Casino cash: $10004900	This far in, would you say Cassel was the only option for the Chiefs? I think so. Really what could they have done to upgrade the QB position? Not much. They had no shot at Stafford, or, Matt Ryan from the previous year. They were in range to draft Sanchez, but Id be more content with Cassel to this point since Sanchez is playing terrible. What else could they have done? stick with Croyle or Thigpen? I was content when Thigpen was playing well, and thought we had some sort of chemistry, connection with Gailey's spread offense and Thigpen. But that all fell apart when the new regime took over. I can't think of anything else? they could have traded up and try to get either Stafford or Ryan, but we know that would have been too costly. I guess he was the Chiefs best bet? Best thing is to just sit back, have some patience and wait for him to develop over time.
Posts: 6,666

11-24-2009, 03:40 PM	#50
SenselessChiefsFan MVP Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $10005450	Um... for the record, Matt Ryan is not having a 'great' year on a MUCH more talented offense. He has 500 more yards, but a VERY similar passer rating and twice as many INT's. Again, not saying that Ryan isn't having a better year, but look at the WR's, RB... oh, and he has a pretty good TE down there too.
Posts: 5,540