Explanation of Litton cut

[FANATIC 852]

4 minutes ago, wilkie said:

Goes without saying that the Chiefs ALWAYS wanted to move Litton to PS.   They had to hold onto McGloin to see if Litton would clear waivers.  Once he did,  they released McGloin.  That was the plan all along.  But now Chiefs go with two quarterbacks.   That is really uncharacteristic of Andy Reid teams.  Glad it happened.  My guess is McGloin will not be picked up but will catch on with somebody after injuries strike.

Ok now I understand. Thanks 

[oldtimer 8,693]

I think we are soo thin at certain positions  we need the spot a 3rd QB would of taken to shore up someplace else

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

33 minutes ago, wilkie said:

Goes without saying that the Chiefs ALWAYS wanted to move Litton to PS.   They had to hold onto McGloin to see if Litton would clear waivers.  Once he did,  they released McGloin.  That was the plan all along.  But now Chiefs go with two quarterbacks.   That is really uncharacteristic of Andy Reid teams.  Glad it happened.  My guess is McGloin will not be picked up but will catch on with somebody after injuries strike.

Agree.  LItton is the perfect developmental third, but they had to make sure he cleared.  I was almost certain he wouldn't clear.  Really good news, Wilkie.

[PAChiefsFan79 136]

My thoughts on the idea of "if the Chiefs back up QBs are playing the season is lost."

It's easy for fans to think it is pointless to keep a veteran 3rd stringer versus a young developmental project, but when it comes down to it these players and teams are still trying win games and reach the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl. They don't intend to tank the season because the 3rd string QB is playing. Those who have actually played sports would understand this. It's always about winning. So making the decision to keep McGloin made sense in this regard.

 

Also, even though the Chiefs are not carrying a 3rd string QB on their 53 man roster at this moment, I didn't see any logic to keeping Litton over McGloin. The Chiefs have their young developmental QB. His name is Patrick Mahomes. The chances of Litton actually amounting to even a 2nd stringer is a fat chance. So in my opinion, who they planned to keep as a third QB was irrelevant. My only issue was them wasting a roster spot on a 3rd QB. That made sense when the Chiefs had a veteran QB starting and as a back up while still hoping to groom a young diamond in the rough. But now that the Chiefs have a starting QB that could be playing for the next 15 years, I see no reason to have 3 QBs on the 53 man roster for the next decade.

 

Anyways those were some of the thoughts going through my head when reading the comments.

[PAChiefsFan79 136]

1 hour ago, oldtimer said:

I think we are soo thin at certain positions  we need the spot a 3rd QB would of taken to shore up someplace else

I agree with this. 

[jetlord 10,209]

37 minutes ago, PAChiefsFan79 said:

My thoughts on the idea of "if the Chiefs back up QBs are playing the season is lost."

It's easy for fans to think it is pointless to keep a veteran 3rd stringer versus a young developmental project, but when it comes down to it these players and teams are still trying win games and reach the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl. They don't intend to tank the season because the 3rd string QB is playing. Those who have actually played sports would understand this. It's always about winning. So making the decision to keep McGloin made sense in this regard.

 

Also, even though the Chiefs are not carrying a 3rd string QB on their 53 man roster at this moment, I didn't see any logic to keeping Litton over McGloin. The Chiefs have their young developmental QB. His name is Patrick Mahomes. The chances of Litton actually amounting to even a 2nd stringer is a fat chance. So in my opinion, who they planned to keep as a third QB was irrelevant. My only issue was them wasting a roster spot on a 3rd QB. That made sense when the Chiefs had a veteran QB starting and as a back up while still hoping to groom a young diamond in the rough. But now that the Chiefs have a starting QB that could be playing for the next 15 years, I see no reason to have 3 QBs on the 53 man roster for the next decade.

 

Anyways those were some of the thoughts going through my head when reading the comments.

Several thoughts.  First of all it's possible the Chiefs would have as good of chance of winning a game with Litton as with McGloin.  Litton didn't look all that lost in pre-season.  Second,  Litton could develop into the #2 a year or two down the road after Henne is gone.  The main thing, as several others have pointed out, is that it's foolish to waste a roster spot on the third QB if there any alternative.  The Chiefs need bodies at DB and the more at those positions, the greater chance of finding a diamond in the rough. 

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

44 minutes ago, PAChiefsFan79 said:

My thoughts on the idea of "if the Chiefs back up QBs are playing the season is lost."

It's easy for fans to think it is pointless to keep a veteran 3rd stringer versus a young developmental project, but when it comes down to it these players and teams are still trying win games and reach the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl. They don't intend to tank the season because the 3rd string QB is playing. Those who have actually played sports would understand this. It's always about winning. So making the decision to keep McGloin made sense in this regard.

 

Also, even though the Chiefs are not carrying a 3rd string QB on their 53 man roster at this moment, I didn't see any logic to keeping Litton over McGloin. The Chiefs have their young developmental QB. His name is Patrick Mahomes. The chances of Litton actually amounting to even a 2nd stringer is a fat chance. So in my opinion, who they planned to keep as a third QB was irrelevant. My only issue was them wasting a roster spot on a 3rd QB. That made sense when the Chiefs had a veteran QB starting and as a back up while still hoping to groom a young diamond in the rough. But now that the Chiefs have a starting QB that could be playing for the next 15 years, I see no reason to have 3 QBs on the 53 man roster for the next decade.

 

Anyways those were some of the thoughts going through my head when reading the comments.

Agree. An entire season is not lost if the starting QB goes down, as long as the overall roster and depth are good.  The only Superbowl that the Chiefs ever won was a year (1969) when Len Dawson was injured nearly half the season, and the offense was in the hands of Mike Livingston, at least 5 games down the stretch, if I recall.  Every team has to have a strong roster and ONE good backup QB.  The part that has to be really strong is the O-line and the D-line.  If those are weak, even the best QB is not going to get a team a championship, not even divisional.

[oldtimer 8,693]

Livingston was our 3rd QB as well

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

5 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Livingston was our 3rd QB as well

You have a great memory.  Better than mine.  Who was our #2, and why wasn't he the guy when Dawson went down? Do you recall?

[oldtimer 8,693]

Jackie lee was our #2 and IIRC he got hurt the same game

nope my bad..next game  vs Cincinnati broken ankle 

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

1 minute ago, oldtimer said:

Jackie lee was our #2 and IIRC he got hurt the same game

OMG.  You're right.  And Livingston turned out to be good enough that he was our starter for a few years after Lenny retired. You've just passed the "no-Alzheimers test."

[sith13 1,746]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Litton make the 53-man roster once the dust is settled. We needed temporary roster spot for guys like Sorensen and Pringle to stash them at IR. Once everything is taken care of I believe we'll have 3 QBs on the final roster. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

3 minutes ago, sith13 said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see Litton make the 53-man roster once the dust is settled. We needed temporary roster spot for guys like Sorensen and Pringle to stash them at IR. Once everything is taken care of I believe we'll have 3 QBs on the final roster. 

 If that was case they could have just kept him on 52 and released McGloin initially. I think Andy is mixing up his usual roster formula possibly again because he sees this as a developmental year of sorts.  

Specifically Khalil McKenzie is getting a red shirt year on the roster because they love upside and don’t think they can sneak him on the PS.  We’ve got an extra RB.  10 Lineman too so I think it makes sense when Harris returns we could dump a player from that group. .  

[sith13 1,746]

1 hour ago, Mloe68 said:

 If that was case they could have just kept him on 52 and released McGloin initially. I think Andy is mixing up his usual roster formula possibly again because he sees this as a developmental year of sorts.  

Specifically Khalil McKenzie is getting a red shirt year on the roster because they love upside and don’t think they can sneak him on the PS.  We’ve got an extra RB.  10 Lineman too so I think it makes sense when Harris returns we could dump a player from that group. .  

The initial move to keep McGloin only to release him afterwards still doesn't make sense to me. I'm confused about the reasoning. We needed roster spots to keep the IR-bound guys but kept a 3rd QB only to send him packing.

McKenzie got a lot of hype on his side and I doubt he would last on the PS so makes sense to keep him around and considering we have Wylie as the LG starter depth is definitely needed there. Let's see what they do with Litton and how they handle Harris' return but right now I don't understand the reasoning of some moves. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

5 hours ago, sith13 said:

The initial move to keep McGloin only to release him afterwards still doesn't make sense to me. I'm confused about the reasoning. We needed roster spots to keep the IR-bound guys but kept a 3rd QB only to send him packing.

McKenzie got a lot of hype on his side and I doubt he would last on the PS so makes sense to keep him around and considering we have Wylie as the LG starter depth is definitely needed there. Let's see what they do with Litton and how they handle Harris' return but right now I don't understand the reasoning of some moves. 

I think they believed nobody would claim Litton but kept McGloin just in case. Once Litton was officially on our PS, they let McGloin walk.  

[jetlord 10,209]

On 9/3/2018 at 11:42 AM, Fmbl2187 said:

OMG.  You're right.  And Livingston turned out to be good enough that he was our starter for a few years after Lenny retired. You've just passed the "no-Alzheimers test."

He may have been the starter after Lenny, but was he good enough?  😀

[wilkie 1,518]

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 11:34 AM, Fmbl2187 said:

You have a great memory.  Better than mine.  Who was our #2, and why wasn't he the guy when Dawson went down? Do you recall?

Jacky Lee....who then went out and got himself injured in the Cincinatti game.  Livingston was later handed the reigns to the offense after Dawson retired and he was not up to the task.

 

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

14 minutes ago, wilkie said:

Jacky Lee....who then went out and got himself injured in the Cincinatti game.  Livingston was later handed the reigns to the offense after Dawson retired and he was not up to the task.

 

Yep.  But he wasn't given much of a team to work with.  They were great earlier in their careers but getting old and slow by the time LIvingston tried to win with them. They remind me of the Royals after their championship.  Remember the Royals?  What ever happened to them?  Are they still in Kansas City?

[jetlord 10,209]

2 hours ago, Fmbl2187 said:

Yep.  But he wasn't given much of a team to work with.  They were great earlier in their careers but getting old and slow by the time LIvingston tried to win with them. They remind me of the Royals after their championship.  Remember the Royals?  What ever happened to them?  Are they still in Kansas City?

Different era.  The Royals couldn't afford to keep their core players who came up near the same time and who had contract years all at once.  The Stram era Chiefs just got old and the organization was too loyal to the aging players and an outclassed GM.  Except for a few outstanding draft choices such as Henry Marshall, they didn't replace the key players and suffered for over a decade as a result.

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

1 hour ago, jetlord said:

Different era.  The Royals couldn't afford to keep their core players who came up near the same time and who had contract years all at once.  The Stram era Chiefs just got old and the organization was too loyal to the aging players and an outclassed GM.  Except for a few outstanding draft choices such as Henry Marshall, they didn't replace the key players and suffered for over a decade as a result.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Mloe68 1,521]

2 hours ago, jetlord said:

Different era.  The Royals couldn't afford to keep their core players who came up near the same time and who had contract years all at once.  The Stram era Chiefs just got old and the organization was too loyal to the aging players and an outclassed GM.  Except for a few outstanding draft choices such as Henry Marshall, they didn't replace the key players and suffered for over a decade as a result.

I think there are similarities in that the Royals should have accepted fate and started rebuild in earnest rather than trying to compete and rebuild at the same time. Loyalty and desire not be bottom feeders again set the organization and depleted minor league system back several years and we still became bottom feeders again anyway.

Chiefs did this same thing again after Marty retired trying to cling to aging core and salvage a competitive team rather than sucking it up (literally).  This just never works and a huge reason I appreciate what Andy did when we drafted Mahomes and risked a pretty good thing in order to potentially be great.   

 

[PAChiefsFan79 136]

On 9/3/2018 at 12:18 PM, jetlord said:

Several thoughts.  First of all it's possible the Chiefs would have as good of chance of winning a game with Litton as with McGloin.  Litton didn't look all that lost in pre-season.  Second,  Litton could develop into the #2 a year or two down the road after Henne is gone.  The main thing, as several others have pointed out, is that it's foolish to waste a roster spot on the third QB if there any alternative.  The Chiefs need bodies at DB and the more at those positions, the greater chance of finding a diamond in the rough. 

You are right, it is possible the Chiefs could win a game with Litton as they could with McGloin, I just don't think either of them stand a better chance over the other. McGloin has played in regular season games in the NFL. I give him the edge for that but since you are looking at Litton as possibly becoming the #2 down the road then it does make more sense to keep him over McGloin. That said, how many 2nd string QB's has Reid drafted since he's been with the Chiefs? The answer is none. Every QB has been a veteran, albeit some drafted by Reid when he was in Philly, but still veterans who have been in the league for awhile. It's really a non topic at this point since we know the decisions they made up to this point, but I find the thought process to be interesting which is why it makes for a decent discussion point.

 

Would you feel the same way about McGloin versus Litton if Mahomes wasn't the QB and the Chiefs still has Alex Smith? Just wondering how different variables effect the 3rd string QB spot versus a practice team spot.

 

I agree that yes DB is a bigger area that the extra roster spot can go to to hopefully find a diamond in the rough. We need a little luck on that side of things.