|
|
stevie
Fresh Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 9
Rating: 0  
|
|
I have this ongoing discussion with some of my pals about Rich Gannon when he was a Chief.
One of my buddies exonerates Marty for not playing Gannon in the 97 playoff game vs Denver. He believes Peterson forced Marty in to playing Grbac. I told my friend he was full of shit and that the call was all on Schotzy.
I suppose I can hold Peterson responsible for letting Gannon go or not cutting his losses with Grbac earlier, but if the coach doesn't believe in a player then I can see why a GM would let him walk.
I don't think I'm in left field on this one.
What say you?
|
|
Answer
|
etocaj
Fresh Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 8
Rating: 0  
|
|
Wasn't the real reason Grbac was taken over Gannon just pure $$$ under the salary cap rules. IIRC
a. Gannon wouild require QB starting pay b. Cutting Grbac would then accelerate his signing bonus against the cap (the Chiefs could not handle in terms of Salary 2 starting QB's).
|
|
Answer
|
global01
Fresh Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 9
Rating: 0  
|
|
I think Marty and Carl prob'ly agreed on Grbac. I don't think either one of 'em understood the QB position and what Gannon (and Bono, for that matter) could've accomplished if not hampered by wrongheaded/outmoded offensive philosophies. *sigh* If only they'd never gone after Grbac in the first place and just tried to bolster Gannon's supporting cast. Oh, what might've been.
|
|
Answer
|
Qube2
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 20
Rating: 0  
|
|
I'm no expert, but I've always been a Gannon supporter.
|
|
Answer
|
|
The Content on this site is provided for general information purposes only. Your use of the Content, or any part thereof, is made solely at Your own risk and responsibility. By entering this site you declare you read and agreed to its Terms, Rules & Privacy.
Copyright © 2006 - 2010 Kansas City Chiefs Fans
|
TIP: Write your question in detail [
why?
]
|