The Oakland Raiders were able to get their replacement quarterback. The Kansas City Chiefs are not. That’s the difference between where the NFL trade deadline currently stands and where it should be, according to ESPN’s Adam Schefter. In a recent article, Schefter argues convincingly for moving back the trade deadline in hopes of keeping fan bases interested in teams competitive for far longer.
If the trade deadline were Nov. 18 instead of Oct. 18, then Denver would be able to unload quarterback Kyle Orton and his weekly salary of more than $450,000. Houston and Kansas City would be able to add another qualified quarterback to help them with their playoff push. Everyone, including the sport itself, would be better off.
For all the time that the NFL’s competition committee spends studying rules to constantly improve the game, there is one rule that could be changed to generate even more interest in the most popular sport in our country. A later deadline would lead to more discussion and more equity among teams, which would benefit fans and TV networks.
It’s an interesting proposition to think the Chiefs could have traded for a replacement for Matt Cassel in a season like this. Of course, some fans would want to hold on to draft picks and hope that Ricky Stanzi or Tyler Palko can provide the difference. It’s a lost year for some fans after so many injuries and the letdown of the Chiefs’ performance so far. Yet it’s possible to argue for the opposite since the team is within one game of first place in an odd year for the AFC West. Anything is still possible for the Chiefs and if they could have made a Raiders-like move to find a quarterback replacement (or for another position), this season would have been even more intriguing.