I know quite a few Chiefs fans have images of quarterbacks like Peyton Manning and RGIII dancing in their heads, and while most fans would agree that Matt Cassel isn't the present or long term answer, I just don't see Scott Pioli making a big splash by bringing in a big name in free agency or drafting a quarterback in the early rounds.
A player that I have honestly forgotten about is David Garrard. Now, before I hear a collective sigh from you guys, let me explain why I mention him.
I hate to say it, but I believe that Scott Pioli is still determined to support Matt Cassel as much as possible and I think with keeping Jim Zorn as quarterback coach and bringing in Brian Daboll who like Cassel is from the Patriot family tree and more than likely will have a system Matt is somewhat familiar with, Pioli has shown he is willing to stick with Cassel.
Now, Crennel and Pioli have stated they want to see a competition at quarterback, but I don't see the team bringing in a Manning or drafting a RGIII.
I can see Pioli being interested in bringing in someone like David Garrard. Garrard isn't going to likely command much of a contract and at the age of 34 also likely isn't going to be looking for a starting role promised out of the gate. I would think if the Chiefs showed interest, the opportunity to come to Kansas City and compete with Cassel would be attractive.
Also, Garrard brings experience that could also be viewed as a positive for both Cassel and Ricky Stanzi. Plus, and possibly most importantly, I think Pioli would view Garrard as that veteran presence that would push Cassel, but not really be a threat to push him to the bench. I am definitely not saying I agree with this idea, but I could see it being a definite consideration by Pioli.
I definitely don't think there will be alot of interest in Garrard outside of being a veteran backup, and I think he would bring just enough to the table that should Cassel struggle out of the gate, we wouldn't have another Palko situation...while providing the team with a veteran #2 to let Stanzi continue to gain experience.
Last edited by nicfre2011; 02-13-2012 at 09:23 PM.
There was a lot of discussion about bringing him in as a back-up at the beginning of the season, when the Jaguars cut him. (See http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/sh...=David+Garrard)
I don't hate the idea. He would be a "cost effective" signing for the Chiefs. He has experience as a starter and with our style of offense (and our defense), we don't need a superstar at the QB position to be effective.
I think you are right, Nick, when you talk about competition at the QB position. (Hey, that rhymes!) The Chiefs aren't looking for an upgrade or a replacement for Cassel; just someone who is about as effective as he is. I think Garrard would be a good fit as a back-up. I could also see them going after Quinn who is much younger, but lacks the playing experience that Garrard has.
Take a look at the Bears. They brought in Josh McCown who was out of the NFL and coaching a high school team after Caleb Hanie struggled and he did a pretty good job for them. So the fact that nobody picked up Garrard last season, doesn't mean he wouldn't be decent QB. (Hey, what about taking a look at McCown, if the Bears don't resign him?)
I think what it will come down to for the Chiefs is this. Do they want an older veteran Qb who will be around for a couple of years as a back-up, while they continue to develop Stanzi (or a future draft pick) to be Cassel's eventual replacement? Or do they want a younger back-up who could eventually develop into becoming the starter, himself, sometime down the road? If they go with the former, then Garrard is a real possibility.
There aren't a lot of great options at the position in free agency this year, and the Chiefs have too many bigger pressing needs to go after a Qb early in the draft, so signing Garrard does make some sense.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Not trying to be mean it was just that you offered no reasoning behind why you think that or what you'd do differently. We're not looking to make him a starting QB and you don't need starting talent in a #2 QB just someone that can manage the game if needed.
I don't think it'd be a bad pickup as I'm sure he still has a trick or two in his pocket and can teach Stanzi a few things.
I think Cassel does need someone to push him at QB. Campbell is a better fill for me. He can scramble if needed, and was playing pretty good before getting hurt. And could give us some info on a confrence opponent. And if the price is right, get him! I don't like Cassel's mental strength, when he gets hit a few times, he tends to get afraid and don't play well.
I suggested Cambell or Quinn early on. We have to have some sort of a reliable back up. We can not be put in the same spot we were in last year....
lol i didnt care to give a reason why i said he he sucks cuz i just dont care for him at all. id go for cambell or quinn.
I certainly don't think "most" Chiefs fans think Cassel isn't the present or future answer. If people want to throw around their opinions and ideas, I'm all for it. I am, however, sick to death of a few people trying to speak for all of us. And I think very unfavorably of the opinion that Garrard, Campbell or any other of the current crop of rejects are, or have the potential to be, better than Cassel. You want to talk about drafting, let's do it. But to say any of these guys mentioned are even close to as good as (2x Pro Bowler)Cassel shows a lack of basic football knowledge. Just my opinion-I attach no other significance to it and I AM NOT going to try to speak for other Chiefs fans.
I'm no longer in favor of the Chiefs picking him up.