View Full Version : If the Chiefs are going to draft a QB with the 12th pick...

Chiefs Pantalones
04-06-2001, 07:53 PM
why not give it up and get the QB they really want?


thinks this Green deal isn't over yet

04-06-2001, 07:58 PM
If we are honest.....I think it will be Trent Green. Hey, the picks are high but at least a young (or should I say younger) one that is out there. Besides, he was doing good until he was hurt and Warner showed what he could do.
Just my thoughts..:confused:

04-06-2001, 08:15 PM
I agree the Chiefs will probably trade the #12 pick for Green on draft day. I would rather they didn't, but it's not up to us (damnit)!

If they don't trade it for Green, I don't see any QB on they board at #12 worth using the pick on.

It's really hard to tell what they have in mind by watching who they have signed. We still have glaring needs at DT & QB. I know some would add RB here, but I would like to be shown what T-Rich or Moreau could do with 25 carries. (Sorry RB Homers)

I'll support them whatever they do, but I would like to see Beurline...DT or Moss(I know I'm gonna get slammed, but what can I say, he's a playmaker) in the first round...maybe T. Henry in the 3rd...Marques T. in the 4th...BAA with remaining picks.

15 days and counting...

04-06-2001, 08:28 PM
Cody...you are so pro-Green trade on both BB's its not funny. It sounds like you think the whole success of the Chiefs is relying on this deal going through.

Zebedee DuBois
04-06-2001, 08:29 PM
I'm not totally convinced that #12 will go for a QB.
But... if it does, then Green is likely a better choice, than a draftee.

How are we doing on cap space after these recent signings? Anyone know?

Chiefs Pantalones
04-06-2001, 09:29 PM

I just want the best for my team, and in my opinion, this is the best.



04-06-2001, 10:49 PM
Good golly gosh Cody...I want Green as bad as you do,
but not at the expense of handing them our 12th overall pick! And what if, at 12, Deuce McAllister is still available. Would Green be what's best for "our" team,
or would Deuce be the better choice? Could you live with yourself if McAllister turns out to be the next Marshall Faulk? Green may be the best fit, but he may not be the best option. Period. Besides, I'm very pro-Vermeil, I'm glad he's our coach, and to think of how his character has been dragged through Ram **** since his hiring, makes me never to want the Cheifs to give into the Ram organization's arrogance. Fagliabue did a fine job of that already.

04-07-2001, 03:21 AM

IMO, Trent Green is not the answer that everyone thinks. He is just as much "damaged goods" as Aikman or Beurlein, younger I admit, but is he any good after the lates injury?

I don't want to give up the picks that the Rams covet because we need them to rebuild. I would rather sign Beurlein(proven leadership skills, guy with something to prove, a guy who could appreciate a REAL O-line), draft a QB in later rounds, and take a Defensive stud in the 1st round, Sign Priest Holmes and let he and T-Rich fight it out for the starting job.

Just my .02...


04-07-2001, 04:49 AM
old_geezer wishes the Green deal was dead. My preference is Beurelein and keep our draft choices.
Build through the draft; don't mortgage our future to St. Louis for Vermiel's Golden Boy.

04-07-2001, 07:42 AM
To those who are (still) pissed at Tagliabue, like CanadaKC, I (still) say that your ire is directed at the wrong party, or parties.
Tags had no legal basis to award the picks to the Rams, but you had to know that he wasn't going to let CP and the Chiefs just sign DV without compensation.
But it was Hunt and CP that decided to follow through with the DV contract, and to give up the picks.
If they really felt they were right, and above board in their dealings with DV and the Rams, they could have persued legal avenues to block Tag's decision.
IMO, Hunt, CP and DV should be the target of your ire. The Chiefs would have reacted the same way as the Rams, and recieved the same compensation, if their positions were reversed.
As for Green, just say no.

04-07-2001, 08:31 AM
Tags had no legal basis to award the picks to the Rams

Exactly. What point in contracts if Tagliabue rules by fiat, instead of by law? We can just let him decide what is a fair compensation for the coaches and players as well.

Thought contracts stood for something.

04-07-2001, 08:47 AM
Agreed Gaz.
But my point is that the Chiefs had options. They could have taken Tags to court, and won. I beleive you are the person that suggested to a Rams fan that this option wasn't explored because LH is a good NFL soldier. I, on the other hand believe that it more due to the fact that CP and Tearmeil were less than honrable in their tactics.
Their 2nd could have been to pass on Tearmeil and persued other HC options. That would have been my choice.
I know I am in the minority (an extremely small minority) onthis subject, but I just don't believe that Tearmeil is the answer to KC's woes, and that this decision is going to haunt us for years.

04-07-2001, 08:58 AM

No, that was not I.

My point is that we have laws and contracts for a reason. They attempt to remove subjectivity and misunderstandings.

If a badly written contract allowed Vermeil to coach when the Rams thought he would not, then the contract was flawed from the Rams’ perspective and they should not have signed it. The fault there belongs entirely to the Rams.

Tagliabue awarded compensation to the Rams because the Rams’ lawyers wrote a crappy contract.

That is clearly wrong, regardless of whether you want Vermeil or not.

Foolish enough to believe that a signed contract means something.

04-07-2001, 09:01 AM
As far as “honorable tactics” are concerned:

There was no contractual restriction to prevent Vermeil from coaching for the Chiefs. Where does honor enter into it? This seems like a misguided slap at Carl when there are many legitimate slaps that can be aimed at him.

Thinks we are mixing apples and oranges again.

04-07-2001, 09:34 AM
Maybe 'honorable tactics' is the wrong desciption. Maybe I'm wrong about this, altogether.
Here's my problem with the way the situation was handled. And this may be where I'm mistaken. So correct me if I am.
As I understand it, CP asked the Rams for permission to speak with Tearmeil, and was refused. Since the Rams had no restriction in Tearmeil's consulting contract, this request was really nothing more than a courtesy.
But in extending that courtesy, and being refused, CP should have gone to the league to present his case for hiring Tearmeil first, rather than hire Tearmeil despite the Rams' refusal, and then having to defend their position.
Handling the situation the way that they did, the Chiefs cast themselves as the vllians. Whereas, taking their case to the league first, the Rams would have been cast as the villians.
As someone else, on the Star board I believe, suggested, perception is everything.

04-07-2001, 09:39 AM

From a PR standpoint, I think that would have been a better way to handle it.

Looking back.

04-07-2001, 09:40 AM
But would it have made any difference in Tagliabue's compensation decision?

Does not have that much faith in Tagliabue's "fairness."

04-07-2001, 09:46 AM
As far as the compensation is concerned, an answer would only be speculation, obviously. But, yes, I believe it could have made a difference.

04-07-2001, 11:01 AM

If your suspicion is correct, then not only did Tagliabue’s compensation have no legal basis whatsoever, but it was issued because the Chiefs were sneaky and had to be punished.

And you want to know why I think Tagliabue sucks?

Has yet to hear a valid justification for Tagliabue’s compensation.

04-07-2001, 01:28 PM
"the Chiefs were sneaky"

That's the reason that at least some of your ire should be directed at CP.
I'll admit that Tags is a jerk off in this, but CP put the Chiefs in the position tat got 'em screwed.

04-07-2001, 01:38 PM

I have never said that Carl and Vermeil were stainless, I merely said that Tagliabue had no justification for his compensation decision.

That is why "Tagliabue sucks!"

I am perfectly willing to discuss the faults and fine points of Carl, but that is a totally separate discussion. Tagliabue, as Commissioner, should be an impartial arbiter. Compensation for Vermeil with no legal basis is not impartial, regardless of the provocation.

Steadfastly maintains that Tagliabue sucks.

04-07-2001, 03:27 PM
"sneaky"? That's what's getting you upset? Geez any CEO worth his salt is a sneaky SOB. Grow up! Tags awarded our 2nd for pure PR reasons, and if Lamar, Carl, etc wanted to push it they could have (and won)....but Lamar is class and doesn't play that Al Davis game.

04-07-2001, 08:55 PM
But you see Gaz, CP had to at the least suspect that Tags would award the Rams more compensation for his "sneaky" tactics. I did as soon as the reports of Tearmeil's hiring came out, and I heard that it was in a "sneaky" manner.
That and the fact that CP considers Teameil worth the high compensation is why my ire is directed at CP.

I'm the one that is upset that CP used "sneaky" tactics. Not because he used sneaky tactics specificly, but because, I believe that had he been above board in this situation, that he would have cost the Chiefs less in terms of compensation, and that he, being in his position should haveat least suspected.

04-07-2001, 09:07 PM
You need to go and read about the #37 Foundation. I wouldn't really say that Lamar was a class act..:rolleyes:
This is all political anyway.
I have my reasons for not liking Lamar, but he does own the Chiefs, just needs to respect them more.

04-07-2001, 10:18 PM
Milkman...I said perception is everything on the star BB,
which is exactly why I think Green will never don a Chiefs jersey. Trading for him would make the entire Cheif organization seem like a bunch of push-overs...
thanks to Fagliabue's idiotic compensation decision.
You can argue until your blue in the face, but that's the simple, hard truth...and the last thing Carl and Vermeil want the rest of the league and their fans to perceive is that the Rams have them by the balls on every issue.