Stanzi is terrible

[Dave Lane]

At least according to Jayice Pearson and the hosts of the "Big Show". Jayice called him garbage and said its obvious Cassel is way better than Quinn who is way better than Stanzi and "was obvious from" camp that Stanzi couldn't be taken seriously as a replacement for Quinn let alone Cassel.

What gives I haven't seen any reports that are that bad about Stanzi and yet a former Chiefs Cornerback called him garbage and said we should get Garrard or Young instead. What gives? Any other reports he's looking that shaky?

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by themanwithnoname

Go back 4 years into Carl's tenure and tell me what clear Hall of Famers he had drafted? FFS this might take the cake for dumbest argument I've read on here.

And you might be the dumbest poster I've encountered since I returned from my absence.

If you didn't think that Derrick Thomas was a future Hall of Famer, especially after his multi-sack performances, you either missed the games or are the biggest dipshit, ever.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Who has more?

No one

But you do get my point, right? People here are pissed the Chiefs haven't spent a first rounder on a QB since 1983 but the Steelers went nearly that long.

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

This roster has the potential to be competitive should they get a franchise QB. Problem is, that's at minimum a year down the road, plus the time it takes for him to play at a high level.

Guys like DJ, Hali, Flowers, etc aren't going to play at an elite level forever.

The window is going to be very small.

What is going to happen this year is that the team will win 7-9 games, take itself out of position to draft a quarterback, and Cassel will be 2013's opening day starter.

If you have tears, prepare to shed them

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

We have a competitive roster right now.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I would say that we have an incomplete competitive roster. I don't think there's anyone outside of One Arrowhead Drive that truly believes that Matt Cassel can lead a team to the Super Bowl.

Originally Posted by The Mayor

We have a talented roster.

We're missing something. What could it be?

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Peterson acquired Saleamua through Plan B Free Agency. He also didn't **** up the 4th overall selection in 1989, which was huge. There was a debate going on as to which was the better linebacker, Broderick Thomas or Derrick Thomas. Broderick had a fine career but not a Hall of Fame career.




Two more years?



I'm not laughing at your statement, it's just that how in the ****ing world can it take SIX YEARS to put together a competitive roster together in KC when teams turnaround in two or three years all the time?

My point was Carl Peterson started with a lot of talent already on the team. I don't think you can argue that. The Chiefs were considered to have less talent than a first year expansion team. When you're roster is that bad, it's going to take more time than the average turn around. As for *****'s time, it's just an opinion. I'm hoping Romeo can correct the Cassel mistake, one way or another. I think he will

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

We've beaten one playoff team in three years - the 7-9 Seahawks.

I wouldn't call that "competitive".

This roster has the potential to be competitive should they get a franchise QB. Problem is, that's at minimum a year down the road, plus the time it takes for him to play at a high level.

Guys like DJ, Hali, Flowers, etc aren't going to play at an elite level forever.

The window is going to be very small.

Packers don't count as a playoff team?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

What is going to happen this year is that the team will win 7-9 games, take itself out of position to draft a quarterback, and Cassel will be 2013's opening day starter.

If you have tears, prepare to shed them

I rarely say this anymore, but Sir, goddamn you.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

We've beaten one playoff team in three years - the 7-9 Seahawks.

I wouldn't call that "competitive".

This roster has the potential to be competitive should they get a franchise QB. Problem is, that's at minimum a year down the road, plus the time it takes for him to play at a high level.

Guys like DJ, Hali, Flowers, etc aren't going to play at an elite level forever.

The window is going to be very small.

I think this is the most talented roster since 1989. Yes, the Chiefs need a franchise QB, no question. But they have a shit ton of young talent at nearly every position and they actually acquired a little depth this off-season.

Now, I'm not making any predictions but I think this team has a chance, despite Cassel, to make a little noise this year.

[themanwithnoname]

Holy shit, now you're arguing that the Steelers aren't a good organization and the Pats don't draft well? I'm not saying the Pats are the best, but damn, they've done quite well in the past 12-13 years, probably about as good as anyone else. They've had their share of bad ones, but what teams have done better through the draft in that time period?

I think you have a valid criticism about the Steelers and them not finding a QB (which is exactly why *****'s horseshit about Cassel is so stupid, the evidence is that mediocre guys like him don't win you Super Bowls), but to say they're a bad organization, I don't know what to say other than that is right in line with the rest of the stupidity you've posted in this thread. Does that make the Raiders and Lions (pre-Stafford) and some of these other teams that have busted on QBs they drafted high good organizations?

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Packers don't count as a playoff team?

or the steelers

edit: plus those 7-9 seahawks took out a good playoff team in the 1st round of the playoffs....IIRC

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by SNR

If it makes you feel better, then sure. Go ahead and make one.

I'm supporting Stanzi because he's the best QB on the roster. That's all. I wanted us to suck for Luck. Then I wanted us to trade up for RGIII. Then I wanted us to trade up for Tannehill. My desire to find a legitimate 1st round QB is well-documented.

Starting Stanzi either gets us better production than Cassel, or it gets us more losses than Cassel. More losses get us a better shot at a real QB (since this franchise has demonstrated it doesn't give a flying **** about trading up to get the right guy). If it goes the other way, then we have an upgrade from Cassel.

People who oppose this kind of astound me. But it's not my problem or responsibility to make them understand. So whatever. They can keep on thinking another 27:7 season from Cassel will get us a playoff win. I'd rather be more realistic.

God bless us, everyone.

Well, everyone that's in our group...everyone else can go straight to hades with Aaron Curry aids.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Now, I'm not making any predictions but I think this team has a chance, despite Cassel, to make a little noise this year.

Dragging the millstone, so to speak.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DarthCarlSatan

Dragging the millstone, so to speak.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much all we can hope for at this point.

[themanwithnoname]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

And you might be the dumbest poster I've encountered since I returned from my absence.

If you didn't think that Derrick Thomas was a future Hall of Famer, especially after his multi-sack performances, you either missed the games or are the biggest dipshit, ever.

No wonder you left, jesus christ, if you posted regularly like you do in this thread I'm sure you probably were constantly called a moron.

Which, if you could ****ing read, actually plays into my argument. Other than Berry, who ***** did draft, who has been a player anywhere close to that level of prospect that ***** passed on?

Wow, 1 guy, you're right, no wonder Carl got to stick around so long, we knew he'd draft a few Hall of Fame players. That sure got the Chiefs Super Bowl wins. All that amazing drafting Carl did sure paid off.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by themanwithnoname

Holy shit, now you're arguing that the Steelers aren't a good organization and the Pats don't draft well? I'm not saying the Pats are the best, but damn, they've done quite well in the past 12-13 years, probably about as good as anyone else. They've had their share of bad ones, but what teams have done better through the draft in that time period?

I think you have a valid criticism about the Steelers and them not finding a QB (which is exactly why *****'s horseshit about Cassel is so stupid, the evidence is that mediocre guys like him don't win you Super Bowls), but to say they're a bad organization, I don't know what to say other than that is right in line with the rest of the stupidity you've posted in this thread. Does that make the Raiders and Lions (pre-Stafford) and some of these other teams that have busted on QBs they drafted high good organizations?

Who exactly have the Pats drafted?