It's been said before but I'm honestly currious start Stanzi??

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

I've caught myself asking that same question the past 2 weeks, but there is a simple answer.

Stanzi has some tools that could allow him to be a solid QB in the league. That said, playing him too early would probably ruin him, because I doubt he's ready. I'm a big hawk fan and before the draft compared Stanzi to Cassel.

He's got the size, he's got the arm, he's got the work ethic, he's got experience in the big games(which Cassel doesn't).....BUT for every game he looked great or every fantastic throw made under pressure, he'd make the most bone-headed Casselesque throw into triple coverage.

No offseason, no minicamps.....no work in the offseason in a professional capacity....no.

I'd rather he have more time to study and learn before being thrown to the wolves. maybe later in the season for experience.

That's exactly how I see it. Maybe get him some snaps (not a start, time in a game) later in the season if he shows he's ready. (I think the fact that he's inactive to this point speaks to his current readiness)

And I don't stick with Cassel through thick and thin. Scour the waver wire, make a trade for another backup, whatever it takes to make the position competitive (as in competitive in a game, giving the team a chance to win).

As far as the '12 draft, if we're in position I say take Luck or another QB, regardless of Stanzi. There's absolutely no downside to having multiple developmental quarterbacks. Best case scenario is that they both flourish and you have the opportunity to trade one of them, as the Chargers were able to do with Brees and Rivers. Worst case (well, not 'worst' technically; that would be both flopping) is that one is what you want as a starter and the other is a career backup.