Kansas City Chiefs' need for QB in NFL Draft evident

by Dan Kadar on Sep 25, 2011 9:15 PM EDT in 2012 NFL Draft

If it weren't already evident before this week that the Kansas City Chiefs need a true franchise quarterback, it should be now.

With the team down 20-17 to the San Diego Chargers, there was just enough time to mount a drive to at least tie the game. But in doing so, starter Matt Cassel threw an interception on a screen intended for running back Dexter McCluster.

The loss dropped the Chiefs to an ominous 0-3. While there are still plenty of time to turn the season around, the odds are against it. That's especially true while Cassel is under center.

On the season, Cassel has more interceptions (five) than touchdowns (three). Cassel isn't necessarily regressing, he's just not improving or taking advantage of the talent around him.

Cassel is in the middle of a six-year contract signed before the 2009 season. The deal was for $63 million with $28 million guaranteed. According to reports, the contract was front loaded with $40.5 million coming in the first three years. So while there is a good amount of money tied into Cassel, it's not excessive.

It's especially not too excessive for the Chiefs to use a first-round pick on a signal caller. Judging by how the season is going, the Chiefs will have a high draft choice. That means they could be in play for Stanford's Andrew Luck or Southern California's Matt Barkley if they don't have the top pick.

Right now, both look like franchise quarterbacks, something that Cassel does not.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | Add comment | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

They have Stanzi

He is clutch. At least he was at Iowa.

Life without knowledge is death in disguise

Follow me on twitter @iktriad

by Zoltan from Budapest on Sep 25, 2011 9:16 PM EDT reply actions

If only they would start him, or at least play him some

but they won’t. He hasn’t even been active the first 3 weeks because Cassel has been so awesome and Palko is, well, Palko is not awesome either.

Insert witty yet thought provoking phrase here.

by Fozzyboyd on Sep 27, 2011 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Stanzi wasn't all that good in preseason either, was he?

Plus he’s from Iowa.

Go Suns, Packers, Jays, and Huskers!

Green Bay Packers: Super Bowl XLV Champions!!!!

I also edit things at Ridiculous Upside. Check it out.

by Omaha Sun on Sep 27, 2011 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions

He was ok, arguably he looked better than Palko and Cassel

and that was while playing with 3rd and 4th stringers who are no longer on the team. The o-line he was behind in the preseason was similar to trying to hold water in a strainer, it let everything through.

Insert witty yet thought provoking phrase here.

by Fozzyboyd on Sep 30, 2011 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions

I can't believe I started him 3 weeks in a row...

negative points 2 of 3 weeks… 3 week total of like 5 points… smh…

by vitzeng on Sep 25, 2011 9:29 PM EDT reply actions

What talent are

you talking about? I don’t disagree that Cassel is suspect, but he pretty much has Bowe as talent right now. I would say no breaks for anyone, when you are making $63 mil you better deliver, but I have as much doubt about the O-line, RB’s situation without Charles, overall depth offense and defense, coaching esp on offense, and Haley, and right now GM. There are no guarantees in the draft, especially QB’s so I am not sure I can get on that bandwagon yet.

"Nonsense. By all means, move." Doc Holliday, the movie Tombstone.

by kcsoonerfan on Sep 25, 2011 10:37 PM EDT reply actions

Disagree with your last sentence

Right now, both look like franchise quarterbacks, something that Cassel does not.

You must have not watched the game last night yet. ASU was out 5 starters on defense, they beat USC by 20+. Barkley beat Minnesota by 2, Minnesota just lost to North Dakota State. I did not even know there was a North Dakota State.

Watching tape last week, I got distracted. Looked up to see Barkley make such a bad throw into zone defense, I got confused as to which team was on offense. I had to rewind the DVR to check.

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue."

by ct17 on Sep 25, 2011 11:18 PM EDT reply actions

Oh man Barkley had one bad game?!

Let’s boot him out of the franchise QB prospect level then. Makes sense.

Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 26, 2011 5:38 AM EDT up reply actions

I referenced three games in my post

I could also reference some of his bad games last year if that helps you. He’s got a good arm. So do 25 others. He is very inconsistent. In some ways, reminds me of Locker. You never know which QB is showing up.

Barkley is surrounded by talent, yet USC is struggling. There are plenty of overhyped QBs from USC (used to be Miami) who were more successful in college, and still tanked in the pros.

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue."

by ct17 on Sep 26, 2011 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree...

I’m skeptical as well. Robert Griffen III and Kellen Moore outside of the first look like better options than Barkley right now IMHO. There is an Atlantic Ocean that separates the talent of Luck and Barkley.

by Crown Chief on Sep 27, 2011 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed on the Barkley assessment

I’m not sold on him, or Landry Jones for that matter. As it stands right now, I like Foles and Tannehill both as QB prospects and value for where they can be had in the draft assuming its held today. I’d much rather take either of them at the top of the second round than Barkley with a top 5 pick.

Of course, Luck is still the class of the draft and I would sell any vital organs necessary to acquire him.

You can't spell Power without Powe.

by Sudden on Sep 28, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions