Chiefs Stanzi is terrible - Page 15

**Dave Lane** · 07-30-2012, 08:30 PM

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?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 07-31-2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

ChiefMojo · 07-31-2012, 05:22 PM

No matter how negative one wants to get... we have a very competitive roster! Sure we question the QB spot but you can't deny Pioli has actually done a very good job adding pieces throughout the roster. Imo we are a QB away from a Super Bowl caliber team. Even with that said I think Cassel can still lead this roster to the playoffs since it is that good.

**007** · 07-31-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

We have a competitive roster right now.

Minus one.

**Rausch** · 07-31-2012, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

This is the exact point I was trying to make the other night: Teams like Pittsburgh are "lucky". They hadn't drafted a QB in the first round since 1980 and went the entire decade of the 90's with second rate journeyman and a guy that was better suited at wide receiver as their QB. Had the Steelers had any balls and traded for a Steve Young or moved up to draft a guy, they might have TEN Super Bowl rings right now.

Rothlisberger fell into their laps. They didn't make a move to get him. Tom Brady fell into the Patriots laps. They didn't make a move to get him. That doesn't "prove" great ownership or a great front office: It proves that they they were lucky that those players fell to them.

When you go to 4 SB's in 8 years you're doing more right than getting lucky. The Pats make smart trades to give themselves more draft picks. The more draft choices you have the better the chance you'll hit a home run with one of them. Not only that but they've won about every way out there. They've won with a running game and good defense. Passing game and good defense. Outstanding passing game and almost no defense.

They keep going to SB's because they adapt - they don't get stuck in one mindset.

And the Steelers are the opposite. They are the model. Stability, continuity, tradition. 3 HC's in 30+ years because they don't hire the wrong guy. They constantly draft well. They do an excellent job of evaluating their own talent.

Other teams rise and fall but the Steelers and Pats just go to title game after title game every few years...

**the Talking Can** · 07-31-2012, 05:26 PM

i'd like to cosign Dane's last 8-10 posts

spot on...and you have a much better memory than me

The Mayor · 07-31-2012, 05:26 PM

Quote:

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.

Exactly. This is so frustrating. I hate thinking about the last times since 1993 we had so much talent on D and made the playoffs. Why didn't we win in the playoffs? The ****ing QB. I cringe thinking about going through that again.

O.city · 07-31-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

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.

We did beat the Packers and Broncos last year, so we tripled that number.

But I get your point.

**the Talking Can** · 07-31-2012, 05:28 PM

"competitive" is a meaningless word in the nfl

you can step on your dick and win 6-7 games in a league built for competitive balance...

**DaneMcCloud** · 07-31-2012, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

When you go to 4 SB's in 8 years you're doing more right than getting lucky. The Pats make smart trades to give themselves more draft picks. The more draft choices you have the better the chance you'll hit a home run with one of them. Not only that but they've won about every way out there. They've won with a running game and good defense. Passing game and good defense. Outstanding passing game and almost no defense.

They keep going to SB's because they adapt - they don't get stuck in one mindset.

And the Steelers are the opposite. They are the model. Stability, continuity, tradition. 3 HC's in 30+ years because they don't hire the wrong guy. They constantly draft well. They do an excellent job of evaluating their own talent.

Other teams rise and fall but the Steelers and Pats just go to title game after title game every few years...

Sorry man, I disagree. If the Steelers were a great organization, they would have far more Super Bowl rings. It was a massive amount of failure on their part to not find an adequate QB through either free agency or the draft at O'Donnell left via free agency. That team could have been the most dominant, ever, but instead, they were just a very good team.

It's a myth that the Patriots draft well.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 07-31-2012, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Who is Jayice Pearson?

Cassel's scrotum-scrubber.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 07-31-2012, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

We did beat the Packers and Broncos last year, so we tripled that number.

But I get your point.

Yep. My mistake. I was using the "Cassel" numbers and forgot about those two.

Point stands.

O.city · 07-31-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Sorry man, I disagree. If the Steelers were a great organization, they would have far more Super Bowl rings. It was a massive amount of failure on their part to not find an adequate QB through either free agency or the draft at O'Donnell left via free agency. That team could have been the most dominant, ever, but instead, they were just a very good team.

It's a myth that the Patriots draft well.

This.

The pats have had some decent draft picks, but not a whole lot of studs.

themanwithnoname · 07-31-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Holy shit, this is ****ing nonsense.

With the fourth selection of the 1989 draft, Carl selected Derrick Thomas. With the third selection of the 2009 draft, Pioli drafted Tyson Jackson.

The selection of Thomas set this franchise on fire and brought it to heights it hadn't seen since the 60's. The selection of Tyson Jackson has brought the Chiefs nothing. Two losing seasons out of three.

To further that notion, Peterson drafted another Hall of Famer in Will Shields in 1993 and yet ANOTHER Hall of Famer in Tony Gonzalez in 1997. Three Hall of Famers in eight years, two in the first four.

I doubt Pioli has drafted a Ring of Honor player during his four drafts, let alone two Hall of Famers.

You've got a fair point on the '09 draft, but come on, none of those guys were in DT's level. He was a can't miss prospect so its just stupid to even compare that. But ok, ignoring that, there was Cushing, Matthews, and Orakpo that I think would have warranted a reach (in hindsight, mind you). If we drafted them would we have kept DJ or Hali? Especially after DJ's '09? Would Hali have even had the chance to convert to OLB? Then again, maybe Studebaker would have been our special teams ace and we'd have dumped Vrabel sooner with the development of those guys.

I'm also not sure what the **** Tyson Jackson had to do with the Chiefs losing. 2009 the team flat out sucked ass (and we don't have over half our current starters on the team even), and then 2011 the defense played well without arguably their best player and a big hole at nose tackle, oh and with one of the shittiest offense the Chiefs have ever trotted onto the field so unless the defense only gave up 12 points a game they were doomed to lose anyway.

You doubt any of the guys Pioli has drafted will make the ring of honor? Herm ****ing Edwards found 5 that I think have a good chance of making it (Charles, Bowe, Hali, Albert, Flowers), I doubt Pioli didn't find any.

Actually this whole argument is ****ing stupid. 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.

The Mayor · 07-31-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yep. My mistake. I was using the "Cassel" numbers and forgot about those two.

Point stands.

Point definitely stands. It is strengthened actually.

**Rausch** · 07-31-2012, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Sorry man, I disagree. If the Steelers were a great organization, they would have far more Super Bowl rings.

Who has more?

07-30-2012, 08:30 PM
Dave Lane Space Cadet and Aczabel Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Kanab, UT, USA Casino cash: $9333275 VARSITY	Stanzi is terrible 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?
Posts: 40,584

07-31-2012, 05:22 PM	#212
ChiefMojo Happy, Happy, Happy!!! Join Date: Jan 2009 Casino cash: $10004935	No matter how negative one wants to get... we have a very competitive roster! Sure we question the QB spot but you can't deny Pioli has actually done a very good job adding pieces throughout the roster. Imo we are a QB away from a Super Bowl caliber team. Even with that said I think Cassel can still lead this roster to the playoffs since it is that good.
Posts: 2,283

07-31-2012, 05:26 PM	#215
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	i'd like to cosign Dane's last 8-10 posts spot on...and you have a much better memory than me __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585

07-31-2012, 05:28 PM	#218
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	"competitive" is a meaningless word in the nfl you can step on your dick and win 6-7 games in a league built for competitive balance... __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585