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
David Garrard cut - Kansas City Chiefs Forums)
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.
Bookmarks