I'm not sold on taking a QB in the first round either. If we could nab either Klein or Barkley (because of injury) in the 2nd, that would be my aim. Getting the best player in the draft or trading down for multiple picks should be the only concerns for the Chiefs.
Although, I will say that after watching the KSU/UT game the other night, I've cooled quite a bit on Klein. His throwing motion seems long and doesn't posses the arm strength I first thought he had. I watched him with acute interest wondering why he wasn't getting more first round consideration... I get it now.
Flacco COULD be available. His agent thinks he's a top 5 QB and the Ravens may balk. He'll probably get franchised again, but he could become available... who knows. Another option COULD be Tony Romo. There seems to be a 50/50 split on what Romo is. He's probably not a top 3 QB, but I don't think he's out of the top 10 either. His INTs troubled me, but then I looked at them and he's average. His 15 picks are within one or two of about 10-15 QBs in the league. His QBR is 90, which again, is about average. However, he's 3rd in yds and has a 70 completion percentage. He won't be a free agent, but he won't cost too much considering he's only under control for one year... unless they work out an extension first. One last free agent option could be Jason Campbell.
The Romo trade would probably cost our 2nd round pick AND a first round pick swap.
Cassel has no doubt hurt the other players around him. There's no denying that. But that's also been the case the other way around the other players have hurt Cassel. Cassel has hurt more then others but others have hurt him as well that's all I'm saying. It's not as simple to say that Cassel is the reason we are where we are the TEAM is. And when that happens you point to the head coach,.
I agree with you on Quinn Sundays game He LOOKED like a qb and a good one. Now we need to see it more then once. And we need to see it very often if he's going to be the guy but for one sunday he looked very good. Can he be the guy I have doubts but I'm open to it if he keeps up what he did Sunday.
I liked Orton because he reminded me of Trent Green, he wasn't a franchise pro bowl qb but he could read defenses and make throws. 2009 was his first year in Denver, he played a tough schedule and had a pretty productive year.
I thought with a little time he would be good for us, he had proven that he could play legit teams and do well, Cassel never did. Even Cassel's year in New England he contributed to beating ONE winning team, and that was with the team that went 19-1 the previous year. I thought with a great running game Orton could of been even MORE productive, but that time has passed.
I will say the offense looked better with Orton at QB last year but just like there was some things working against him there were things in his favor. The Number 1 thing is there was never much film on him with this team.We never will no how he would continue going.
But my point about Orton isn't what could have been it was showing how your standards are 100% different from what it's with Cassel. Orton beat the packers because the D stood up. Same with Denver. The D was playing great at the end of last year.That's why we won.You would be saying that if it had been Cassel at QB. The Packers had one of the worst Defenses in the NFL last year. If Cassel had been the QB you would be saying that. You make excuses for every win we had with Cassel while praising Orton in the same spot. Orton might have made the offense look better but we lost the division because he couldn't put up much points against the Raiders. He had the same problem with the offense that Cassel did last year he moved the ball some but once we got into the redzone it was over and we had to settle for 3. Yet you praise 1 bash the other. Orton might have made the offense look a bit better but the results were not much better when it comes to the number 1 thing for an offense points on the board.
He had been there a month. Cassel had been there for 3 seasons. He was picked up off of waivers for god's sakes. He was even coming off an injury and playing with a team he had absolutely no experience playing with.
My standards were different because I have seen Kyle Orton play well against good teams, I have never seen that with Matt Cassel in his 4 seasons as a starter. Why would I want someone who plays like a scrub against legit teams? Kyle Orton atleast proved that he was capable, and that was without a great ground game to hide behind.
You can say "Well if cassel beat Green Bay you would of talked about how bad the defense was." I firmly believe Cassel would of made mistakes against Green Bay and Denver to lose the game, there is no doubt in my mind.
1. Week 1 2010 the Chiefs beat the Chargers you say it was inspite of Cassel Well week 17 we put up a grand total of 7 points and Orton gets full credit for the win?
2. Week 2 this year. You were very proud to say see what Bowe did. It's the 1 time I said you were trolling. Yet when I say look at Cassel's numbers you were quick to say "he did that once the game was already over" Ya well so did Bowe. They put up there numbers at the same time. Since Bowe needs Cassel to get him the ball and Cassel needs Bowe to catch it. 1 you give credit 2 the other you bash.
3. You spent part of the offseason telling me that the loss of Charles "was just an excuse for Cassel" Now you want to talk about Orton not having a ground game so are you "just making excuses for Orton"?
Orton Looked better in his brief time in KC then Cassel did for most of his. But looking better doesn't mean much if points are not going on the board any better. Putting points on the board is the number 1 job of an offense under Orton they didn't do that much better then Cassel. We will never no what would have happened. Orton could have really gotten something going if he had more time there is no denying that but what also could have happened is other teams get a gameplan for Orton in this offense and we would be going nowhere. There's also no denying that. I don't think there's a reason to be to high or low on Orton we just didn't see enough
Well obviously looking back everyone can agree we would of been much better off with Kyle Orton. What do you think is more complicated? One man trying to figure out his teammates and the opposing defense, or one defense going against a simplistic offensive gameplan?
For some reason I cant highlight my second and third answers in bold up above, but they are in there.