Hypothetical Question

**jap1** · 03-01-2012, 05:04 PM

So, with all the talk and speculation (both here and by the talking heads in the NFL world) that we are the front runners to get Manning, I have a hypothetical question.

What do we do with the backup position if we get Manning?

This is going to be critical, because Manning is no spring chicken and he could easily get hurt mid-way through the season. I think you have to have someone capable of coming in and AT LEAST managing the offense with Manning out.

Also, if you sign Manning, I think you HAVE to consider the fact that he is only going to be here for 2 MAYBE 3 years before he hangs it up (or before his performance drops down to substandard levels).

So here are the options:

Do we keep Cassel as the #2 and continue grooming Stanzi as the future heir apparent, then have them compete when Manning is done?

Do we trade Cassel and sign someone else to be a backup (Orton, Campbell, Henne), continue grooming Stanzi? (If you pick this, let me know what you think we could get for him from a QB hungry Seattle, Washington, Miami, Cleveland, etc).

Do we cut Cassel and sign someone as above?

Do we draft someone in 2nd or 3rd round and groom them as the heir apparent?

**jap1** · 03-01-2012, 05:09 PM

IF we got Manning (which I am not sold on yet). I vote for trading Cassel. I think we could probably get a 3rd rounder for him. If not more. Thats just my opinion. I wouldnt be surprised to see his old college coach trading for him up in Seattle (hopefully Cassel isnt still pissed about not getting the starting job at USC).

**OPLookn** · 03-01-2012, 05:17 PM

I voted for trading Cassel. However my vote actually isn't on there. I don't think our QBotF is in this years draft (because of cost or talent) or is out there in the free agents. My thought is that our QBotF is out there in college right now.

Manning's contract to me would be 3 years max. Cassel has another 3 years on his. If we kept Cassel he'd be a very expensive backup. Granted he could step right in and play but I want someone that hasn't tasted the starting QB role and want it instead of being a backup.

Stanzi, I don't know about him. I want to think they're grooming him to start but part of me wonders if they aren't thinking he's not going to be a starter so lets build him to be a good backup. After all if he even showed any hints of being a starter my thought would be that he would have played at some point last year. Maybe we're just keeping him safe but I don't think that's it.

My thought would be to trade Cassel for a maybe a 2nd but probably a 3rd rounder, he is a starting QB after all. Then continue grooming Stanzi, pick up Campbell while telling him he's going to be the backup unless Manning can't hack it or if he's injured. Then next year we sell the farm to get an awesome QBotF. Because by then we're either contenders or we're a few free agents away from making a couple of super bowl runs. Then after those few years are over we have someone to step in for Manning, we drop Campbell and promoted Stanzi to the backup role we groomed him for and draft/sign a youngin or sign someone else to hold the 3rd QB spot.

**TopekaRoy** · 03-01-2012, 05:30 PM

Great question!

My personal preference would be to keep Cassel as a backup, but he won't be happy with that and I don't see the Chiefs paying him that much to sit on the bench.

So that means we would almost have to trade him. We would still have our first round pick which we could spend on a QB, but that would come at the expense of upgrading our offensive line. Stanzi can be groomed for the future but I don't think he is ready to be our back-up QB. So now we have to bring in a veteran FA like Campbell or Henne (as OP suggested). I don't think Orton would sign with us if we brought in Manning.

Signing Manning sets off a chain of events that I am not really comfortable with, which is another reason (besides the fact that he can't throw the ball, right now) that I am generally opposed to the idea.

It would make for a very interesting off-season, though!

**okikcfan** · 03-01-2012, 05:44 PM

Cassel would be our best bet if Manning got hurt. Who knows our offensive system better than Cassel?

**jap1** · 03-01-2012, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by okikcfan

Cassel would be our best bet if Manning got hurt. Who knows our offensive system better than Cassel?

With a new O. coordinator and head coach, are you sure we would be keeping the same system?

**70 chiefsfan70** · 03-01-2012, 05:50 PM

I think that "if" we sign Manning, we would have to keep Cassel in case Manning went down. Manning is a very risky move and we better have someone familiar with the offense that could step right in and play, we don't want to put that much money on him and not have a backup plan. Who would fit this better then Cassel? Having to pay big for a backup is just part of the risk we would take if Manning was to come here.

Now on Stanzi..........I don't think anyone knows anything about his ability to play as a backup or starting, as he has not had any playing time, therefore I didn't vote on the poll.

**TopekaRoy** · 03-01-2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by jap1

With a new O. coordinator and head coach, are you sure we would be keeping the same system?

If we sign Manning our "system" goes out the window, and Daboll will pretty much be here just to make "suggestions!"

**okikcfan** · 03-01-2012, 05:53 PM

Yea, good point, kinda forgot about that part.....Dang, well that kinda changes things......I'm not too sure we could trade Cassel with his past performance and the amount on his up coming salary but at the same time I would hate to just cut him ya know......

**OPLookn** · 03-01-2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by 70 chiefsfan70

I think that "if" we sign Manning, we would have to keep Cassel in case Manning went down. Manning is a very risky move and we better have someone familiar with the offense that could step right in and play, we don't want to put that much money on him and not have a backup plan. Who would fit this better then Cassel? Having to pay big for a backup is just part of the risk we would take if Manning was to come here.

Now on Stanzi..........I don't think anyone knows anything about his ability to play as a backup or starting, as he has not had any playing time, therefore I didn't vote on the poll.

Your post just summed up my reason for not wanting to get Manning. If we have to keep someone that's a starter "just in case" Manning goes down then I don't want to pay the money it'll cost to get Manning here.

Yes a starter can always go down to injury but when you start drawing plans around that starter as if it's probable that he'll go down...