This explains a lot: http://www.chron.com/sports/texans/...ge-Godsey-as-defensive-assistant-10947837.php
3 seasons ago Tony Romo was better than Alex Smith, but it's not a given that Romo would stay healthy long enough to be better than Alex Smith this year. That's really all I'm saying. That's what makes it a gamble. That's what made it a gamble when the Texans picked up Osweiler. I mean he was an upgrade over anything we had while he was in Denver, but BOB somehow made him a hell of a lot worse so it ended up being a bust. The Chiefs have seen a lot of winning lately, if they move on from Smith and it leads to not making the playoffs due to a Romo injury or just poor performance on his part it'll get everyone fired.....so it's not really a no-brainer for them as it would be for the Texans or Broncos with nothing to lose.
But not because of Alex Smith, and certainly not in the playoffs (1-3 with Smith; their lone victory against, of course, Hoyer). Starting with 2016, Smith has ranked 16th, 10th, 13th, and 14th in QB rating during his Chief tenure; he's a good QB with a ceiling he's incapable of crashing single-handedly. If the Chiefs want to take the next step in the postseason, they either have to get a better QB or build an even better team around Smith.
That may be true, but when you go from a solid but not good QB position to potentially a bad QB position if it doesn't work out, it's going to make people feel some kind of way about things. If they go for Romo and he gets hurt early in the season they are stuck with random backup QB and probably don't make the playoffs. It'll signal rebuilding and no one will be happy about that.
Who are these nefarious "people" you keep mentioning? Fans? I'm guessing, if the Chiefs were to make a decision of this magnitude, that it would have organizational buy-in; that the owner on down would be invested in the prevailing thought-process that Romo is better than Smith and, thus, a gamble worth taking. So, really, "people" don't matter if ownership supports the move. Why do they have a "random" back-up? Their current back-up is Nick Foles, who was originally drafted by Andy Reid - does that sound random to you? And are you under the impression you're the only person privy to Romo's injury history? I'm sure the Chiefs are aware and would not half-ass the back-up QB. Hell, depending on how Romo's contract is structured... they could keep Smith. (They wouldn't; but this idea that if they sign Romo, they somehow lose control over the rest of the QBs on their roster is silly.)
Yeah, Nick Foles sounds like a "random back up" to me. Also, no, they can't keep Smith if they pick up Romo, that would do awful things to the locker room. It's why the Cowboys can't keep Romo. I get that you are REALLY trying to sell Romo to the Chiefs, but I just don't see it.
If, by "random" you mean he, like 99.999999999% of back-up QBs, isn't very good, I'd agree. But random? No; he's not there randomly. Andy Reid didn't draw names out of a hat. BTW, Nick Foles posted a 105 QB rating last year in what were, essentially, two starts under Reid. How do you know? Last time Alex Smith was benched, his team made the Super Bowl. Again, I doubt they'd keep him - I'm just making the larger point that signing Romo doesn't preclude the Chiefs from proactively pursuing a plan B. Yeah, it really seemed to kill the team this year...... No, the reason the Cowboys can't keep Romo is because he's going to count $25MM against their cap, which is a ridiculous sum for a starter, let alone a back-up. Selling it to whom? "People"? I have zero influence and thus, no need to sell it. My preference is for Romo to land here; I'm just concerned the Chiefs could be a viable spoiler - specifically, a trade partner as they could then use Smith to recoup some (or all) of the assets they move for Romo. I don't think - and I'd agree - that the Texans should trade for Romo: they need an opportunity to meet with him, run him through medical protocols and sign him to an Osweiler-friendly deal.
It's funny that Mayock (and a lot of others) rank the QBs like this: 1. Kizer 2. Watson 3. Trubisky 4. Mahomes http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000785722/article/mike-mayocks-2017-nfl-draft-position-rankings Yet a lot mock them in the exact opposite order. Maybe the Texans should be going after Kizer lol from Walter: 2/16/17: In this analyst's opinion, Kizer is the top quarterback prospect for the 2017 NFL Draft. He has a better physical skill set than either Mitch Trubisky or Deshaun Watson.
Walter actually polled some teams and they think he's going to drop http://walterfootball.com/draft2017stock_24.php
I know. If your survey the mock drafts, most don't have him in the 1st anymore. Yet he's the most skilled of the bunch?
Not surprising. Okung self negotiated that weird deal last season which was essentially a 1-year for $5M. I'd call him up and offer him the same deal.
The Texans win a championship next year with a quarterback that can handle a little pressure… With an accurate arm.
