PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs The Chiefs shouldn't select a QB in the 1st round


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 05:57 PM
The differential from a 1 to a 4 pick is practically insurmountable.

:spock:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wKjxFJfcrcA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wKjxFJfcrcA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Deberg_1990
01-29-2009, 05:58 PM
Kinda funny that numerous of us called this happening back in October, we all knew the QB fear mongering would be out in full force.

Right now it appears the noobs are really leading that charge, it seems most of the tenured members have come on board to the QB train.


Also, i fully believe Pioli knows this as well.

Hes also smart enough to know that Brady was the exception, not the rule. Parcells was his mentor.

I laugh at all these types of threads. But in the end, Pioli will do whats right and pick Stafford or Sanchez, whoever is there when we pick.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:58 PM
I want bubba to address this post since he brought up Justin Tuck.

Boy this thread brought it all out...

Let me run through some things you don't take a player just cause you need one at the position, The last thing this team needs is another Tamba Hali with a top 5 pick.

Ok I saw that Justin Tuck was brought up, and the Chiefs do need pass rushers, once again they are not worth the 3rd pick. But 2ndly let's compare pass rushers and QB's ready...

Justin Tuck was a 3rd round pick...there are several very good pass rushers taken out of the 1st round every year it is not nearly the pure luck of Tom Brady.

Name how many times have a top end pass rusher..the truth is most of them do, alot of teams have 2 some even have 3...then go to QB.

That should answer your question about your draft order, QB should come first.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 05:59 PM
it wasn't 7 to 5. The Saints moved from 10 to 7 for less than a 3rd pick.

Saints got #7 & #164
Pats got #10 & #78

The question is what would it have required to move from #7 to #3. That would be a comparable trade. We don't know. But since 7 to 10 was less than a 3rd rounder can we speculate that maybe a 2nd and 6th would get you #3.... maybe. But if I were the Chiefs I would take #42 pick and the #78 to move back 7 spots.

#3 to #7 is a 700 point difference.

So, it would take a swap of 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd to make that deal, according to the chart.

No one is going to do that.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:00 PM
#3 to #7 is a 700 point difference.

So, it would take a swap of 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd to make that deal, according to the chart.

No one is going to do that.

Yea but see the chart is dumb!

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 06:00 PM
:spock:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wKjxFJfcrcA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wKjxFJfcrcA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You have to give up a #1 pick to move down three spots.

Who the fuck would do that?

The Giants did it a few years ago and arguably got completely hosed.

THREE SPOTS.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 06:00 PM
Last year several of us really liked Matt Ryan how many times were we told he wasn't that good or he was just being pushed up due to a bad class? Now we're hearing the bad class thing again...what a coincidence...

I'll admit I was on the Matt Ryan hate wagon. I watched Shermanitor play in college and I didnt like him. I also thought Croyle would be better than him.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:02 PM
You have to give up a #1 pick to move down three spots.

Who the fuck would do that?

The Giants did it a few years ago and arguably got completely hosed.

THREE SPOTS.

And there are other people that would tell you there is no compensation for a franchise player, if we look back in 6 years and both Stafford and Sanchez have become elite franchise QB's and the Chiefs did what Bubb wanted people would say the Chiefs didn't remotely get enough for moving.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 06:03 PM
#3 to #7 is a 700 point difference.

So, it would take a swap of 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd to make that deal, according to the chart.

No one is going to do that.

How about two 2nd's? one this year and one next. look at the history of trades. there have been a lot where teams have moved a lot more than 6 spots.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 06:03 PM
Yea but see the chart is dumb!

Ha.

This is what's laughable about this thread.

You're all talking about how impossible it is to trade out of a top 3 spot, and then you defend the chart.

If the chart is so awesome, then why is it so impossible to move more than 2 or 3 spots down? We're not talking about falling out of the first round. We're saying that to move from a top 5 pick to a good top 10 pick, you have to give up the moon.

Why is that logical to some people?

If the chart worked, you would see a lot more trades in the top 10. The fact that there are never trades is a clear sign that every team in the NFL believes that the trade compensation is GROSSLY overvalued.

Deberg_1990
01-29-2009, 06:04 PM
I also thought Croyle would be better than him.

hahah

I applaud you for being man enough to fess up to that.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:06 PM
hahah

I applaud you for being man enough to fess up to that.

I gave him a serious heaping pile of shit about him saying that...he probably recalls it.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:06 PM
Ha.

This is what's laughable about this thread.

You're all talking about how impossible it is to trade out of a top 3 spot, and then you defend the chart.

If the chart is so awesome, then why is it so impossible to move more than 2 or 3 spots down? We're not talking about falling out of the first round. We're saying that to move from a top 5 pick to a good top 10 pick, you have to give up the moon.

Why is that logical to some people?

If the chart worked, you would see a lot more trades in the top 10. The fact that there are never trades is a clear sign that every team in the NFL believes that the trade compensation is GROSSLY overvalued.

Respond to the other post, I'm one that believes when you have a chance to draft a franchise QB you don't trade out.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 06:07 PM
And there are other people that would tell you there is no compensation for a franchise player, if we look back in 6 years and both Stafford and Sanchez have become elite franchise QB's and the Chiefs did what Bubb wanted people would say the Chiefs didn't remotely get enough for moving.

No, you don't pass on a player that you want. Period. If Pioli believes Stafford or Sanchez is a franchise player, you don't pass on him. I am 100% with you on that. Which is why I supported 100% the move to stay put and draft Dorsey instead of taking the Saints' offer.

My contention is that most teams draft players that are anything but clearcut franchise players, and they resist trading out of their spot because of their retarded draft chart. Case-in-point, did anyone or does anyone still think that Chris Long last year was a franchise player?

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:08 PM
How about two 2nd's? one this year and one next. look at the history of trades. there have been a lot where teams have moved a lot more than 6 spots.

"Mr. Steinbrenner, I think I've found a way to get both Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey, Jr. and we wouldn't have to give up all that much."

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:08 PM
Apparently the Rams did....I wasn't a big supporter of Long, I think drafting a maxed out or very close to maxed out player is a huge gamble.

People may say look what he did on the field but if his physical upside is maxed that's a problem his potential is low.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:08 PM
No, you don't pass on a player that you want. Period. If Pioli believes Stafford or Sanchez is a franchise player, you don't pass on him. I am 100% with you on that. Which is why I supported 100% the move to stay put and draft Dorsey instead of taking the Saints' offer.

My contention is that most teams draft players that are anything but clearcut franchise players, and they resist trading out of their spot because of their retarded draft chart. Case-in-point, did anyone or does anyone still think that Chris Long last year was a franchise player?

The Saints made no offer.

JFC. This shit has to be repeated ad nauseam.

Pestilence
01-29-2009, 06:09 PM
I can admit that I wasn't on the Matt Ryan bandwagon. I didn't think that he sucked....I just thought that we had Croyle and I wanted to see what he can do. Obviously....not a whole lot.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 06:10 PM
I gave him a serious heaping pile of shit about him saying that...he probably recalls it.

Which is why I threw that in. Of course I was real high on Dorsey last year.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:10 PM
I can admit that I wasn't on the Matt Ryan bandwagon. I didn't think that he sucked....I just thought that we had Croyle and I wanted to see what he can do. Obviously....not a whole lot.

Oh come on!

He's really, really, really, really, really good at getting injured very easily.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:11 PM
And I didn't like Joe Flacco because he rose the flags to me that flash stay away. Transferred out of Pitt because he couldn't get on the field behind a QB that wasn't well thought of...

Played at a small school against bad competition, went from a 3rd round pick to a 1st round pick on workouts and arm strength.

I may have been wrong about him but I will always have huge giant flags with QB's who do that, Kyle Boller was the same thing in many ways a mid round guy who rose rounds on arm strength in workouts.

It's just something I would avoid I think you're getting into extremely risky odds when taking one.

Danman
01-29-2009, 06:11 PM
I'll take anyone of these guys next year.

Everson Griffen, DE, USC
Carlos Dunlap, DE, Florida
Taylor Mays, S, USC
Brandon Spikes, ILB, Florida
George Selvie, DE, South Florida
Terrence Cody, NT, Alabama - If we go to a 3-4.

I'll second that-sounds good

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:13 PM
Griffen and Dunlaps pure physical talent and upsides are both significantly higher than any end in this draft...those guys both shit on Brian Orakpo.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 06:15 PM
Ha.

This is what's laughable about this thread.

You're all talking about how impossible it is to trade out of a top 3 spot, and then you defend the chart.

If the chart is so awesome, then why is it so impossible to move more than 2 or 3 spots down? We're not talking about falling out of the first round. We're saying that to move from a top 5 pick to a good top 10 pick, you have to give up the moon.

Why is that logical to some people?

If the chart worked, you would see a lot more trades in the top 10. The fact that there are never trades is a clear sign that every team in the NFL believes that the trade compensation is GROSSLY overvalued.

It's not the chart, for the goddamn eleventy-billionth time.

Unless it's a QB, the 3rd overall pick is going to get a contract in the neighborhood of $57M with $30M of it guaranteed.

The 10th overall pick is likely to get a deal worth $20M and $13M of it guaranteed.

Forget the fucking pick compensation for a minute.

Unless there is someone there they think is a STONE COLD LOCK, who's going to willingly shell out an extra $37M, when they can stay put and still get an elite player?

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 06:15 PM
The Saints made no offer.

JFC. This shit has to be repeated ad nauseam.

Not to doubt you, but what is the most credible source? Because there are tons of sources saying a pick was offered and, quite frankly, I don't always trust the front offices when they say they didn't ever at least inquire.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 06:16 PM
There is a MLB from Kentucky, Micah Johnson that I want us to get next year. Lots of good defense players to choose from. This year is a very good for offensive players. Alot of you are going to be suprised that our defense might not get much help this year from the draft.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:18 PM
The Chiefs could get Sanchez and Heyward-Bey and someone would bitch about it, I don't think some people have come to the reality that this is about building a team for the long haul not about the quickest way to 8-8.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:18 PM
Not to doubt you, but what is the most credible source? Because there are tons of sources saying a pick was offered and, quite frankly, I don't always trust the front offices when they say they didn't ever at least inquire.

Search the archives for draft day 2008.

The Saints DID NOT offer a huge bounty of picks to the Chiefs.

Never happened. ESPN and the NFL Network both refuted it that day.

Pestilence
01-29-2009, 06:19 PM
Honestly....any position from the 2nd round down....I'll be fine with. The 1st round though...I want either Stafford or Sanchez.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 06:19 PM
It's not the chart, for the goddamn eleventy-billionth time.

Unless it's a QB, the 3rd overall pick is going to get a contract in the neighborhood of $57M with $30M of it guaranteed.

The 10th overall pick is likely to get a deal worth $20M and $13M of it guaranteed.

Forget the ****ing pick compensation for a minute.

Unless there is someone there they think is a STONE COLD LOCK, who's going to willingly shell out an extra $37M, when they can stay put and still get an elite player?

Okay, fine. So nobody wants to pay $57M guaranteed for a #3 pick that isn't a lock.

And yet, a team is asking for the moon, the stars, and 100 steaks to trade out of the pick.

If drafting a pick at #3 for a guy who isn't a STONE COLD LOCK isn't attractive, again, why the **** are they asking for so much trade compensation in return? You would think that if a team didn't want the pick, they would scale down the compensation. That's usually how negotiations work. If I'm selling a house in a bad market, I'm not going to ask you for 2 times market value for the house.

I gotta run, but chew on that for a second.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-29-2009, 06:19 PM
The Chiefs could get Sanchez and Heyward-Bey and someone would bitch about it, I don't think some people have come to the reality that this is about building a team for the long haul not about the quickest way to 8-8.

If we got Sanchez/Stafford, and DHB, I'd bust a fucking nut.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 06:20 PM
I gotta head to Astronomy class.

Hopefully, all this stupidity hasn't rubbed off on me, leading me to sight my telescope on a streetlamp, and telling my professor I've just discovered a new star.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:21 PM
There is a MLB from Kentucky, Micah Johnson that I want us to get next year. Lots of good defense players to choose from. This year is a very good for offensive players. Alot of you are going to be suprised that our defense might not get much help this year from the draft.

Depending of course on how exactly the board shakes out (and barring any trades or the free agent signing of Brown or Evans), I could see the Chiefs choosing offensive players from rounds 1 through 5.

QB, C, RG, RT, RB.

Not necessarily in that order.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:21 PM
I gotta head to Astronomy class.

Hopefully, all this stupidity hasn't rubbed off on me, leading me to sight my telescope on a streetlamp, and telling my professor I've just discovered a new star.

Astrology is for girls.

:D

Pestilence
01-29-2009, 06:21 PM
Just a question.......and I honestly thought about not asking this because now I'm sure the cheap Chief's fans will come out of the woodwork....but....

If we did take Sanchez/Stafford at the #3 spot. What kind of contract would we be looking at?

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:22 PM
Okay, fine. So nobody wants to pay $57M guaranteed for a #3 pick that isn't a lock.

And yet, a team is asking for the moon, the stars, and 100 steaks to trade out of the pick.

If drafting a pick at #3 for a guy who isn't a STONE COLD LOCK isn't attractive, again, why the fuck are they asking for so much trade compensation in return?

I gotta run, but chew on that for a second.

Because if a team is willing to give that up they think the guy there is a lock, you don't just tip your hand and take less than you can get..just because you may not think the guy is a lock that doesn't mean that other team doesn't.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 06:22 PM
I think some people are just used to "patching" every year from all the years under Carl.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 06:23 PM
Just a question.......and I honestly thought about not asking this because now I'm sure the cheap Chief's fans will come out of the woodwork....but....

If we did take Sanchez/Stafford at the #3 spot. What kind of contract would we be looking at?

Matt Ryan went 3rd last year, contracts go up each other, take his contract and increase it by 5-10%.

If Stafford goes one he's going to get a huge huge huge contract and if he signs first Sanchez if he goes to us at 3 will come in asking for something probably between Stafford and what Ryan got.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 06:24 PM
Just a question.......and I honestly thought about not asking this because now I'm sure the cheap Chief's fans will come out of the woodwork....but....

If we did take Sanchez/Stafford at the #3 spot. What kind of contract would we be looking at?

65 to 75 million

Here is Ryan's contract
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3405326

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 06:24 PM
Astrology is for girls.

:D

ASTRONOMY.

Not studying fucking horoscopes.

:D

milkman
01-29-2009, 06:26 PM
Depending of course on how exactly the board shakes out (and barring any trades or the free agent signing of Brown or Evans), I could see the Chiefs choosing offensive players from rounds 1 through 5.

QB, C, RG, RT, RB.

Not necessarily in that order.

Are you fucking high?

The Chiefs need to draft a RT with the first pick.

Haven't you been paying attention?

kstater
01-29-2009, 06:26 PM
Okay, fine. So nobody wants to pay $57M guaranteed for a #3 pick that isn't a lock.

And yet, a team is asking for the moon, the stars, and 100 steaks to trade out of the pick.

If drafting a pick at #3 for a guy who isn't a STONE COLD LOCK isn't attractive, again, why the **** are they asking for so much trade compensation in return? You would think that if a team didn't want the pick, they would scale down the compensation. That's usually how negotiations work. If I'm selling a house in a bad market, I'm not going to ask you for 2 times market value for the house.

I gotta run, but chew on that for a second.

Because if a team is willing to trade into #3, they believe it's a can't miss player. It's what we call leverage.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 06:26 PM
I gotta head to Astronomy class.

Hopefully, all this stupidity hasn't rubbed off on me, leading me to sight my telescope on a streetlamp, and telling my professor I've just discovered a new star.

ROFL

I had to go to class early when this thread broke. It took me awhile to calm down after reading it.

Pestilence
01-29-2009, 06:26 PM
Matt Ryan went 3rd last year, contracts go up each other, take his contract and increase it by 5-10%.

If Stafford goes one he's going to get a huge huge huge contract and if he signs first Sanchez if he goes to us at 3 will come in asking for something probably between Stafford and what Ryan got.

65 to 75 million

Here is Ryan's contract
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3405326

So basically we'd be looking at a 6 year 75 million dollar deal with 36 million guaranteed.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 06:28 PM
So basically we'd be looking at a 6 year 75 million dollar deal with 36 million guaranteed.

Pretty much. Basically the main reason the Chiefs are so far under the cap is bc we dont have a QB salary on it. Most starters in the league have a 20 to 50 million dollar deal at least.

kstater
01-29-2009, 06:29 PM
So basically we'd be looking at a 6 year 75 million dollar deal with 36 million guaranteed.

Well the Lions are drafting 1st and likely a QB, so it wouldn't be out of the question for them to go insane and dole out a 6 year $125 million contract and whomever we select will be wanting more. All depends on who signs first.

Coogs
01-29-2009, 06:29 PM
I'll take anyone of these guys next year.

Everson Griffen, DE, USC
Carlos Dunlap, DE, Florida
Taylor Mays, S, USC
Brandon Spikes, ILB, Florida
George Selvie, DE, South Florida
Terrence Cody, NT, Alabama - If we go to a 3-4.

Yep! LT last draft. QB this draft. Game changer on defense next year.

Pestilence
01-29-2009, 06:29 PM
Well the Lions are drafting 1st and likely a QB, so they could give out a 6 year $125 million contract and whomever we select will be wanting more. All depends on who signs first.

Well shit...the Lions better trade down then. :D

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:30 PM
ASTRONOMY.

Not studying fucking horoscopes.

:D


LMAO

Just bringing a little more levity to the conversation.

As if passing on a franchise QB in favor of another left tackle isn't enough.

:evil:

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:30 PM
Are you fucking high?

The Chiefs need to draft a RT with the first pick.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Dammit! I KNEW I was missing something!

blueballs
01-29-2009, 06:31 PM
say it - live it
Gay for Sanchez
only Jake Long is hotter

Deberg_1990
01-29-2009, 06:37 PM
I think some people are just used to "patching" every year from all the years under Carl.


Pretty much.

Theres a whole generation of Chiefs fans out there that want to relive the early 90's.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:41 PM
Pretty much.

Theres a whole generation of Chiefs fans out there that want to relive the early 90's.

And most of those people never realized that the Chiefs were loaded with talent from the 80's, not the 90's.

Dave Lane
01-29-2009, 06:48 PM
Just like I think this team is WAY more talented than what they showed!! Have a 80 IQ coach can do that to a team.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 06:49 PM
Just like I think this team is WAY more talented than what they showed!! Have a 80 IQ coach can do that to a team.

Nah.

This is the most talent-depleted roster in the entire league.

The team that Marty took over had a plethora of high first and high second round picks.

The current roster is pretty much crap.

Danman
01-29-2009, 06:59 PM
OK Fellow Posters,

Get ready for a steady drivel of "we should trade down and get more picks" threads leading up to the draft. They will happen nearly every day and most will spout ridiculous trade scenarios like this one. It will be the flavor of the week.

Some will argue Pioli "must" trade the pick because New England has been very active in draft day trades. Although anything is possible, I think the only way we trade down is if some team has a woody for Crabtree and gives us a sh*tload of picks to jump in front of the Seahawks-other than that, it ain't gonna happen with this pick. Pioli may trade up or down a few spots in subsequent rounds depending on how he stacks his board.

I do not think Pioli will draft another OL with the #3 pick in the draft, I think he's smart enough to realize he already has a LT that the team just drafted last year and to draft any other OL spot with that high a pick is just stupid. Brace yourselves, he may not draft an OL or LB the first day, if at all. Depends what we find with tier 2 and 3 free agency.

I think he values having a franchise QB AND a good defense, but knows that you get the QB first and then build around him as you develop him. Because there are two first round quality QB in this draft, and because he has a high pick, I believe he will take a QB with this pick.

We can have many threads trying to guess which QB he will pick--and we will. Personally, I think he goes for Sanchez. I believe he reads defenses better and is more accurate. He also has that "inner fire" that I'm not sure I see in Stafford. I believe Sanchez has a bigger upside than Stafford and will be the better pro.

kstater
01-29-2009, 07:01 PM
OK Fellow Posters,

Get ready for a steady drivel of "we should trade down and get more picks" threads leading up to the draft. They will happen nearly every day and most will spout ridiculous trade scenarios like this one. It will be the flavor of the week.

Some will argue Pioli "must" trade the pick because New England has been very active in draft day trades. Although anything is possible, I think the only way we trade down is if some team has a woody for Crabtree and gives us a sh*tload of picks to jump in front of the Seahawks-other than that, it ain't gonna happen with this pick. Pioli may trade up or down a few spots in subsequent rounds depending on how he stacks his board.

I do not think Pioli will draft another OL with the #3 pick in the draft, I think he's smart enough to realize he already has a LT that the team just drafted last year and to draft any other OL spot with that high a pick is just stupid. Brace yourselves, he may not draft an OL or LB the first day, if at all. Depends what we find with tier 2 and 3 free agency.

I think he values having a franchise QB AND a good defense, but knows that you get the QB first and then build around him as you develop him. Because there are two first round quality QB in this draft, and because he has a high pick, I believe he will take a QB with this pick.

We can have many threads trying to guess which QB he will pick--and we will. Personally, I think he goes for Sanchez. I believe he reads defenses better and is more accurate. He also has that "inner fire" that I'm not sure I see in Stafford. I believe Sanchez has a bigger upside than Stafford and will be the better pro.


Holy shit, a competent n00b. But Pioli isn't going to be able to choose which QB he selects. 1 will already be gone, he'll get the other unless the Ram's go stupid and tie up another 60 million in a 2nd QB.

Deberg_1990
01-29-2009, 07:09 PM
Nah.

This is the most talent-depleted roster in the entire league.

The team that Marty took over had a plethora of high first and high second round picks.

The current roster is pretty much crap.


Yea pretty much.

Those early 90's teams were loaded with high draft picks from the 80's.

Thats partially why Marty was able to have instant success.

This Chiefs team only has high picks from the past couple of years.

Pioli has his work cut out for him.

Danman
01-29-2009, 07:58 PM
Holy shit, a competent n00b. But Pioli isn't going to be able to choose which QB he selects. 1 will already be gone, he'll get the other unless the Ram's go stupid and tie up another 60 million in a 2nd QB.

Why thank you. I actually lurked for years before I took the plunge, but I'd rather talk football. Hopefully Detroit is more concerned with amount of starts, history of injuries and goes Stafford. Yes all you SC fans, I know Sanchez only had the finger injury, he's a football player and injuries happen. but we're talking about the Lions' front office. We need to start the rumor mill up. Maybe we can get them to draft Curry or Orakpo #1. Maybe even Crabtree.

RippedmyFlesh
01-29-2009, 08:07 PM
Why thank you. I actually lurked for years before I took the plunge, but I'd rather talk football. Hopefully Detroit is more concerned with amount of starts, history of injuries and goes Stafford. Yes all you SC fans, I know Sanchez only had the finger injury, he's a football player and injuries happen. but we're talking about the Lions' front office. We need to start the rumor mill up. Maybe we can get them to draft Curry or Orakpo #1. Maybe even Crabtree.
Crabtree may turn out to be a great player but I have a feeling if the lions take a WR with their 1st pick some lions fan will do this to Ford Field

http://www.pa.msu.edu/%7Eyang/NuclearBomb.jpg

theorangelion
01-29-2009, 08:09 PM
Holy shit, a competent n00b. But Pioli isn't going to be able to choose which QB he selects. 1 will already be gone, he'll get the other unless the Ram's go stupid and tie up another 60 million in a 2nd QB.

Gee here is the great kstater thinking that everyone who has just joined this site is a N00b. Once again he shows his ignorance. Wake up wildpussy. There have been other forums before CP. And why you were pooping green the rest of us were watching Chiefs football.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 08:15 PM
Holy shit, a competent n00b. But Pioli isn't going to be able to choose which QB he selects. 1 will already be gone, he'll get the other unless the Ram's go stupid and tie up another 60 million in a 2nd QB.

aren't you the guy that wanted chase daniel in round 2?????

kstater
01-29-2009, 08:18 PM
aren't you the guy that wanted chase daniel in round 2?????

Of course I want him in the 2nd, but he won't be there.

kstater
01-29-2009, 08:18 PM
Gee here is the great kstater thinking that everyone who has just joined this site is a N00b. Once again he shows his ignorance. Wake up wildpussy. There have been other forums before CP. And why you were pooping green the rest of us were watching Chiefs football.

Uhh, everyone that has just joined this site is a n00b.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 08:22 PM
65 to 75 million

Here is Ryan's contract
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3405326

wow. you could still trade down and get sanchez. If the chiefs don't take him, he could really drop. I think you could trade down to 6 or 8 and still get him. I still wouldn't want him, but it adds to the argument of trading down.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 08:24 PM
Of course I want him in the 2nd, but he won't be there.

so, chase daniel is going in round 1????????? Detroit most likely will take a QB with the first pick, so I am assuming that they wouldn't take another with the first pick of the 2nd round.

kstater
01-29-2009, 08:26 PM
so, chase daniel is going in round 1????????? Detroit most likely will take a QB with the first pick, so I am assuming that they wouldn't take another with the first pick of the 2nd round.

Of course, he's the prototypical Pro QB. Strong arm, accurate, and tall.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 08:27 PM
Of course I want him in the 2nd, but he won't be there.

LMAO

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 08:37 PM
It's not the chart, for the goddamn eleventy-billionth time.

Unless it's a QB, the 3rd overall pick is going to get a contract in the neighborhood of $57M with $30M of it guaranteed.

The 10th overall pick is likely to get a deal worth $20M and $13M of it guaranteed.

Forget the ****ing pick compensation for a minute.

Unless there is someone there they think is a STONE COLD LOCK, who's going to willingly shell out an extra $37M, when they can stay put and still get an elite player?

I don't buy it. If the money was the problem, you could pull a Minnesota and just slide down. The top picks are worth that much. You have to give up a lot of picks to move up that high. Owners view those players as possible players that you keep for 15 years.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 08:37 PM
wow. you could still trade down and get sanchez. If the chiefs don't take him, he could really drop. I think you could trade down to 6 or 8 and still get him. I still wouldn't want him, but it adds to the argument of trading down.

If anybody is trading up its to get Sanchez.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 08:37 PM
Here's how I see it: The Chiefs will address a couple areas in free agency, making Sanchez the obvious pick. We will all be happy.

Hopefully. If they do, I'm guessing more than a couple.

As far as everyone being happy goes, let's just say that those who would hold their breath underwater waiting for it to transpire would be well-advised to NOT leave the tanks on the boat deck.
But we can always hope.

I believe in defense also.

I want a dominating, intimidating defense like the ones I grew up watching with Buck, Willie and Bobby.

But I want a franchise QB also.

I've watched this team flounder around with scub QBs for nearly 40 years, and I am sick of it.
I am sick of this team (and this fan base) being afraid to risk a high pick on a potential franchise QB.


And tell, how many Super Bowls have the jets and Dolphins won with those QBs?

This is a QB driven league more than ever now.

You might have a once in a lifetime run with a great defense, but if you can build a solid defense to support an outstanding QB, you might actually put together more than one championship run.

And the fact is, you can go back to every QB drafted, there were questions surrounding them coming into the NFL.

The Playoffs this year have made your case for you; not one of those teams got there on the backs of a scrub. And those who we're bordering on "iffy" got shellacked post-haste.
I believe that everyone realizes how important the position is, but there are some people who have a very defeatist outlook on enduring the growing pains that come with developing the talent. Or in the case of a few posters on this board, they don't even know how to recognize, much less evaluate said talent.

I love defense too; it's my favorite aspect of the game. But the last great one we had were defeated by two Quarterbacks; the one on the opposing team, and the one we so stupidly benched.

The importance/value of the position has only increased since that era; we MUST make the move while we have the cap space, pecking order, and two worthy candidates on the board.

I really don't understand the fear, Stafford and Sanchez are the best QB prospects in college right now, there will not be a better one next year, they are both better prospects than Sam Bradford.

It's the whole "culture" thing Scott was talking about. 20 years of doing things WRONG doesn't stay behind on the field when the games are over; it seeps in to every aspect of everything and everyone around it.
I mean come ON! You hear the majority of fans who call in to the radio shows; morons!

Because it might be scary to draft a QB with the #3 overall pick, I think the Chiefs should just pass.

Then, they can hop in at any time during the first round to draft an offensive lineman, hopefully another left tackle that can play right tackle when he's not playing left tackle.

ROFL If you have that much "Musical Chairs" shit going on, something is very, very wrong.


I can admit that I wasn't on the Matt Ryan bandwagon. I didn't think that he sucked....I just thought that we had Croyle and I wanted to see what he can do. Obviously....not a whole lot.

I wanted Croyle to have his shot out of a sense of fairness.

He had his shot. NEXT! :doh!::D

Which is why I threw that in. Of course I was real high on Dorsey last year.

Everybody was high on Dorsey! He looked pretty impressive, but I was more stoked about Flowers than any other of the top 4 picks.

I win.PBJ:D

There is a MLB from Kentucky, Micah Johnson that I want us to get next year. Lots of good defense players to choose from. This year is a very good for offensive players. Alot of you are going to be suprised that our defense might not get much help this year from the draft.

I'm speculating that there will be more FA augmentation to the current defensive roster than most people might think.
Of course I'm not really certain that we even know what we HAVE on the current roster!
Gun and Krummy could potentially and with high probability fuck up every great defensive player this franchise has ever had!

Watching those two on Hard Knocks was painful.


I gotta head to Astronomy class.

Hopefully, all this stupidity hasn't rubbed off on me, leading me to sight my telescope on a streetlamp, and telling my professor I've just discovered a new star.

LMAO IT'S A DONE DEAL! WPI has "scooped" your discovery before you even got to class!

I think some people are just used to "patching" every year from all the years under Carl.

Yep, "culture of losing"; the 20 year gift that keeps on giving! :cuss:


Holy shit, a competent n00b. But Pioli isn't going to be able to choose which QB he selects. 1 will already be gone, he'll get the other unless the Ram's go stupid and tie up another 60 million in a 2nd QB.

Yep, Danman has been increasing his stock since day one.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 08:38 PM
Of course, he's the prototypical Pro QB. Strong arm, accurate, and tall.

hmmm... how tall is he?????

Danman
01-29-2009, 08:39 PM
wow. you could still trade down and get sanchez. If the chiefs don't take him, he could really drop. I think you could trade down to 6 or 8 and still get him. I still wouldn't want him, but it adds to the argument of trading down.

Wow's right. Thank you for proving you didn't listen to any of the many posts explaining the difficulty in trading out of the top five picks. It's VERY UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN

but thanks for playing along anyway. When tomorrow's "We should trade out of the #3 spot for extra picks" thread is started you be sure to post there, okay.

kstater
01-29-2009, 08:40 PM
hmmm... how tall is he?????

Judging by watching him on TV, I'd guess 6'6 or so.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 08:43 PM
Wow's right. Thank you for proving you didn't listen to any of the many posts explaining the difficulty in trading out of the top five picks. It's VERY UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN

but thanks for playing along anyway. When tomorrow's "We should trade out of the #3 spot for extra picks" thread is started you be sure to post there, okay.

Noob of the year! :thumb:

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 08:43 PM
Judging by watching him on TV, I'd guess 6'6 or so.

LMAO

Mecca
01-29-2009, 08:46 PM
What I've come to realize is some people will never really get it no matter how hard you try to explain it to them.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 08:47 PM
Wow's right. Thank you for proving you didn't listen to any of the many posts explaining the difficulty in trading out of the top five picks. It's VERY UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN

but thanks for playing along anyway. When tomorrow's "We should trade out of the #3 spot for extra picks" thread is started you be sure to post there, okay.


it's unlikely, but not for the reasons you say.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 08:49 PM
I honestly want to know why a fan of this team would desire to build into exactly what the 90's teams were, did you honestly not learn your lesson?

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 08:53 PM
I honestly want to know why a fan of this team would desire to build into exactly what the 90's teams were, did you honestly not learn your lesson?

We need the official excuses for not taking a QB thread.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 08:59 PM
We need the official excuses for not taking a QB thread.

FEAR

To many fans of this team would be happy if the Chiefs consistently won 9-11 games every year and won most of their home games so their reason to have a good time drunken party could resume.

I don't think it's any coincidence that alot of people are looking for the quickest way back to 8 wins as possible. They don't want to do what it takes to be the best because that requires risk. They don't want that risk where the team could be bad for several more years.

They want the social event of the Chiefs to return, that's what they care about.

Fairplay
01-29-2009, 09:04 PM
Well, being the politically correct person that i am. And having high standards and morals as well.

I think the Chiefs should draft Sanchez. We need more hispanics on our team. Equal employment and minority have over looked these people for a long time in football and it would be a platform for our organization to stand up and say we will take mexicans on our team.

Sanchez, take off your sombrero, shake hands with your hombres and lead us down the field to victory.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 09:11 PM
You show me a QB on the Chiefs roster that makes these throws...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 09:17 PM
You show me a QB on the Chiefs roster that makes these throws...


Pretty easy to see that he looks injury prone.

Has anyone discussed the possibility of moving down? I heard Philly has two first rounders.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 09:18 PM
In this one...watch his feet, watch his mechanics, his mobility and how unaffected he is by the rush..

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yNwVfPNhYtI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yNwVfPNhYtI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

There are examples in the 1st vid of how a pass rush does not rattle him.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 09:19 PM
FEAR

To many fans of this team would be happy if the Chiefs consistently won 9-11 games every year and won most of their home games so their reason to have a good time drunken party could resume.

I don't think it's any coincidence that alot of people are looking for the quickest way back to 8 wins as possible. They don't want to do what it takes to be the best because that requires risk. They don't want that risk where the team could be bad for several more years.

They want the social event of the Chiefs to return, that's what they care about.

So true. That's the difference between the high$$$$ fans and a guy like me; I love the event, I love being around other fans at the bar on game day, but I covet Championship Victory above all.
I could care less about hanging out in some glorified foo-foo tent, catching up on conversation with the Jonses, and listening to some Red Coater singing "Goin' To Kansas City"

Football is Civilized Warfare, not some "Where will you be summering this year" meet and greet.

Fairplay
01-29-2009, 09:20 PM
I had to restrain myself from jerking my meat to that video Mecca.

But seriously, the guy has pro QB written all over him.

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 09:24 PM
In this one...watch his feet, watch his mechanics, his mobility and how unaffected he is by the rush..


Clearly flawed. He's not throwing off his back foot, and I've been watching Chiefs quarterbacks do this for years.

And these are pro QB's, not college kids who have started only 14 games. I think we should trust the pros. Gonzo thinks so, too.

Fairplay
01-29-2009, 09:25 PM
Plus Sanchez looks perfect for our crappy offensive line. He drops back quick and throws it. He doesn't dick around in the pocket.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 09:31 PM
Well, being the politically correct person that i am. And having high standards and morals as well.

I think the Chiefs should draft Sanchez. We need more hispanics on our team. Equal employment and minority have over looked these people for a long time in football and it would be a platform for our organization to stand up and say we will take mexicans on our team.

Sanchez, take off your sombrero, shake hands with your hombres and lead us down the field to victory.

Historically, the Chiefs have been a progressive franchise from the beginning. I dig Mark solely for his badassness, but I admit I would be very proud of the New Era Chiefs for setting another great benchmark in the NFL.
Right now, the Cowgirls and the Faiders have a lock on the majority of Hispanic football fans. Fuck that! No one deserves to wallow in that shite-pile.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 09:39 PM
ROFL If you have that much "Musical Chairs" shit going on, something is very, very wrong.


That was intended to be a joke for all of those pranksters out there pining for another left tackle in the first round of the draft.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 09:39 PM
God DAMN HE'S GOT A ROCKET!

How the FUCK does he time those 'over the receivers shoulder' throws like that?!?!?!?


The guy just makes you WANT to watch every play. I know that sounds simple, but I watch him operate and I feel hopeful, excited, and optimistic as opposed to having my bottle of Pepto at the ready every time Damon, Tyler, or Brodie take a snap.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 09:41 PM
That was intended to be a joke for all of those pranksters out there pining for another left tackle in the first round of the draft.

I got the gist, I was merely agreeing and trying to help drive the point home.

blueballs
01-29-2009, 09:58 PM
oh shit
were did I leave off
was it page 18

Pasta Giant Meatball
01-29-2009, 10:02 PM
Great vids Mecca. Would love to get him at #3. I like how they showed every pass in the 2nd vid and not just the highlight plays.

Count Alex's Wins
01-29-2009, 10:11 PM
Sanchez has some fucking awesome feet. He sort of reminds me of what Mike McMahon could have been...if he didn't suck.

And wow it's like the rush is not there.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 10:16 PM
Clearly flawed. He's not throwing off his back foot, and I've been watching Chiefs quarterbacks do this for years.

And these are pro QB's, not college kids who have started only 14 games. I think we should trust the pros. Gonzo thinks so, too.

LMAO

Plus Sanchez looks perfect for our crappy offensive line. He drops back quick and throws it. He doesn't dick around in the pocket.

It's so fucking hilarious, these local media ass-hats! First, it was Petro with "Injury Prone":spock: Bullshit.

Then, it was a 610 monkey-fucker who decided to take a shot with "Slow Release".:rolleyes:

Noooo....There's no agenda here!


Me>>>>>> :$2500:<<<<<Ass-Hat Media Flunky<ass-hat media="" flunky=""></ass-hat>

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 10:19 PM
Great vids Mecca. Would love to get him at #3. I like how they showed every pass in the 2nd vid and not just the highlight plays.

Absolutely. The gaffes are important too; they show you what he has done and will do when the play falls apart, and I didn't see anything stupid.

rad
01-29-2009, 10:19 PM
God DAMN HE'S GOT A ROCKET!

How the **** does he time those 'over the receivers shoulder' throws like that?!?!?!?


The guy just makes you WANT to watch every play. I know that sounds simple, but I watch him operate and I feel hopeful, excited, and optimistic as opposed to having my bottle of Pepto at the ready every time Damon, Tyler, or Brodie take a snap.

Yes, I agree. He will become a superb backup for us for years to come....



:D





;)

Ebolapox
01-29-2009, 10:43 PM
I refuse to read the whole thread... has anybody hunted down and maimed the true fan thread starter yet?

rad
01-29-2009, 10:52 PM
I refuse to read the whole thread... has anybody hunted down and maimed the true fan thread starter yet?

No, he's still kicking around somewhere. Albeit licking his wounds.

Ebolapox
01-29-2009, 11:05 PM
No, he's still kicking around somewhere. Albeit licking his wounds.

bitches is slippin'.

chiefzilla1501
01-30-2009, 12:19 AM
Because if a team is willing to trade into #3, they believe it's a can't miss player. It's what we call leverage.

No. A team is only willing to trade into #3 if they think that there is a can't-miss player and they will be willing to give up the moon and the stars to get him.

But what if the #3 pick isn't a "can't miss" pick?

THis is the question nobody seems to answer. The answer on this board is: "if you don't have a surefire #3 pick, then roll over and die, because the trade chart says trading the guy is impossible." Bull-****ing-shit. If you don't have a surefire, "can't miss" pick, then you don't ask for the moon and the stars to trade out of your spot. That's like complaining that you can't sell your Volkswagen because you are asking for $50,000 to sell it.

You're right it is called leverage. And anyone who has ever negotiated knows that when you don't have leverage, you don't ask for more, more, more. If you are in a poor draft class, you don't have leverage and you shouldn't be asking for ridiculous draft compensation. I don't understand why the draft compensation is the same from year to year. It is the stupidest thing I ever heard and ANYONE with experience in negotiations knows how stupid it is to use the same exact benchmark every single year.

Reerun_KC
01-30-2009, 01:14 AM
WOW, Its totally amazing how deep stupidity runs through this fanbase... It will take Pioli to de-stupidfy these guys... YEARS of Carl's retardation wont be undone over night...

Still funny watching people cling on to that way of thinking....

beach tribe
01-30-2009, 01:31 AM
No. A team is only willing to trade into #3 if they think that there is a can't-miss player and they will be willing to give up the moon and the stars to get him.

But what if the #3 pick isn't a "can't miss" pick?

THis is the question nobody seems to answer. The answer on this board is: "if you don't have a surefire #3 pick, then roll over and die, because the trade chart says trading the guy is impossible." Bull-****ing-shit. If you don't have a surefire, "can't miss" pick, then you don't ask for the moon and the stars to trade out of your spot. That's like complaining that you can't sell your Volkswagen because you are asking for $50,000 to sell it.

You're right it is called leverage. And anyone who has ever negotiated knows that when you don't have leverage, you don't ask for more, more, more. If you are in a poor draft class, you don't have leverage and you shouldn't be asking for ridiculous draft compensation. I don't understand why the draft compensation is the same from year to year. It is the stupidest thing I ever heard and ANYONE with experience in negotiations knows how stupid it is to use the same exact benchmark every single year.
Pioli has already shown that he will take less han the ridiculous prices hat the charts say you must get in a trade. I've thought about his, and think you should do what's best for the team. If you can trade down, get the gyt you want, and pick up a2nd, you should do it if that's the best offer you get. It would make trading much easier, because the other team thinks they're getting over on you, but I haven't seen an instance yet where someone got over on the Pats. That said if the QBs are there you take one. The rest of the guys in the draft are interchangeable IMO, and you should do what it takes to trade out, and get more picks. Even if it means you have to take less than what the never changing value chart says. Even though the values are different for every draft/player

kcbubb
01-30-2009, 09:37 PM
FEAR

To many fans of this team would be happy if the Chiefs consistently won 9-11 games every year and won most of their home games so their reason to have a good time drunken party could resume.

I don't think it's any coincidence that alot of people are looking for the quickest way back to 8 wins as possible. They don't want to do what it takes to be the best because that requires risk. They don't want that risk where the team could be bad for several more years.

They want the social event of the Chiefs to return, that's what they care about.

How about because this QB class is one of the worst in years. Stafford is incredibly inconsistent and Sanchez had one good year with a weak schedule. He did have a good game against penn state, but it takes more than a few good games to be a #3 in my book.

Also, our defense sucks and we have several holes to fill. If we could somehow pull a jimmy johnson and trade one pick for several then maybe we could build a defense.

Another reason, even if the QBs end up being decent, they probably would not be successful with the chiefs. both sanchez and stafford are pocket passers. the chiefs don't know what a pocket is. every QB that tried to be a drop back QB last year got killed. no chance. Peyton Manning wouldn't have been successful with that line.

just a few reasons for ya.

kcbubb
01-30-2009, 09:41 PM
No, he's still kicking around somewhere. Albeit licking his wounds.

still here... occasionally drop in to see if someone has made any decent arguments yet except for the your an idiot, go shoot yourself crap. needless to say. I'm still waiting.

DaneMcCloud
01-30-2009, 10:02 PM
still here... occasionally drop in to see if someone has made any decent arguments yet except for the your an idiot, go shoot yourself crap. needless to say. I'm still waiting.

Then you're a moron.

Walk into an AIDS tree.

Darth CarlSatan
01-30-2009, 10:09 PM
How about because this QB class is one of the worst in years. Stafford is incredibly ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ state, but it takes more than a few good games to be a #3 in my book.

Also, our defense sucks and we have several holes to fill. If we could somehow pull a jimmy johnson and ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Another reason, even if the QBs end up being decent, they probably would not be successful with the chiefs. both sanchez and stafford are pocket passers. the chiefs don't know what a pocket is. every QB that tried to be a drop back QB last year got killed. no chance. Peyton Manning wouldn't have been successful with that line.

just a few reasons for ya.

1) Your book counts for shite.

2) What do you think we're trying to build here? Do you really believe that Chan, Thiggy, and the Pistol are here to stay?

I do not sense much hope for you.

Darth CarlSatan
01-30-2009, 10:11 PM
Then you're a moron.

Walk into an AIDS tree.

LMAO

I think someone has a thrashing from Hamas' piss-elm tree in their future.:D

milkman
01-30-2009, 10:39 PM
How about because this QB class is one of the worst in years. Stafford is incredibly inconsistent and Sanchez had one good year with a weak schedule. He did have a good game against penn state, but it takes more than a few good games to be a #3 in my book.

Also, our defense sucks and we have several holes to fill. If we could somehow pull a jimmy johnson and trade one pick for several then maybe we could build a defense.

Another reason, even if the QBs end up being decent, they probably would not be successful with the chiefs. both sanchez and stafford are pocket passers. the chiefs don't know what a pocket is. every QB that tried to be a drop back QB last year got killed. no chance. Peyton Manning wouldn't have been successful with that line.

just a few reasons for ya.

What did we learn from this post kids?

We learned that kcbubb has watched neither Sanchez or Stafford since he thinks that both are simply pocket passers.

Coogs
01-30-2009, 10:59 PM
I have got to bellieve the defense is going to improve this next season just from the coaching changes on that side of the ball. Stay at the top of the draft this season and get a QB. Sanchez or Stafford. Stafford or Sanchez. Either one is fine by me.

Add some players on either side of the ball that are compliment type players... unless we get lucky and a game changer typer person falls to us at the top of round 2.

Then NEXT draft is the one that is loaded with a game changing type of player on the defensive side. Don't trade down and add defensive players with question marks this year to spots that could be filled next year with blue chippers next year, and pass one one of these two QB's and then next year face the possibility of haveing to get the QB with question marks.

Darth CarlSatan
01-30-2009, 11:13 PM
Yes. This! Wise.:thumb:

ChiefsCountry
01-30-2009, 11:23 PM
I have got to bellieve the defense is going to improve this next season just from the coaching changes on that side of the ball. Stay at the top of the draft this season and get a QB. Sanchez or Stafford. Stafford or Sanchez. Either one is fine by me.

Add some players on either side of the ball that are compliment type players... unless we get lucky and a game changer typer person falls to us at the top of round 2.

Then NEXT draft is the one that is loaded with a game changing type of player on the defensive side. Don't trade down and add defensive players with question marks this year to spots that could be filled next year with blue chippers next year, and pass one one of these two QB's and then next year face the possibility of haveing to get the QB with question marks.

This. :clap:

Darth CarlSatan
01-30-2009, 11:33 PM
What did we learn from this post kids?

We learned that kcbubb has watched neither Sanchez or Stafford since he thinks that both are simply pocket passers.

That 30 years of WRONG breeds WRONG.

Ultra Peanut
01-31-2009, 01:22 AM
How about? and those are just superbowl winners. there are a lot of successful QB's that are taken late.

Joe Montana 3rd round

Kurt Warner undrafted

Mark Rypien 6th roundJoe Montana and Kurt Warner weren't enough to convince me, but MARK RYPIEN YOU SAY?!

Sam Hall
01-31-2009, 01:33 AM
Before Sanchez declared, we all wanted Stafford because we didn't think any other position made sense. I don't think that will change before the draft. Quarterback will make the most sense, and it will probably be Sanchez.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 01:37 AM
Before Sanchez declared, we all wanted Stafford because we didn't think any other position made sense. I don't think that will change before the draft. Quarterback will make the most sense, and it will probably be Sanchez.

Yes, yes! To Sam Hall you listen; SAVE YOU IT WILL! :D

Sam Hall
01-31-2009, 01:50 AM
Yes, yes! To Sam Hall you listen; SAVE YOU IT WILL! :D

Sanchez bandwagon rep

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 01:54 AM
Sanchez bandwagon rep

Gracias!

Shit, you go back in to the Archives and you'll clearly see who started this campaign.

Mecca
01-31-2009, 01:57 AM
Weak QB class, hrm I remember that being said last year, now it's being said this year and I'm pretty sure it'll be said again next year...

Truth is right now this is the best class of the 3 this one has 2 top 10 QB's..last year had 1..next year may not have one depending what happens with Bradford everyone knows my feelings on spread QB's but even if you count him after that it gets really shitty, Colt McCoy is not a good NFL prospect.

The people saying next years class would be strong were assuming the underclassmen wouldn't leave 4 of the top 5 junior QB's declared, thus making this year strong and next year weak.

If you think this is a weak QB class you will never like any QB class or ever want to draft a QB, this argument does not get to be made every single year.

beach tribe
01-31-2009, 02:02 AM
How about because this QB class is one of the worst in years. Stafford is incredibly inconsistent and Sanchez had one good year with a weak schedule. He did have a good game against penn state, but it takes more than a few good games to be a #3 in my book.
.

The true fans say this same shit about every draft class, every off-season. Nothing changes with you guys.

Mecca
01-31-2009, 02:04 AM
It goes back to that argument some people frankly don't want a QB unless he's a lock and frankly no one is a lock. Even Peyton Manning had question marks.

beach tribe
01-31-2009, 02:04 AM
Weak QB class, hrm I remember that being said last year, now it's being said this year and I'm pretty sure it'll be said again next year...

Truth is right now this is the best class of the 3 this one has 2 top 10 QB's..last year had 1..next year may not have one depending what happens with Bradford everyone knows my feelings on spread QB's but even if you count him after that it gets really shitty, Colt McCoy is not a good NFL prospect.

The people saying next years class would be strong were assuming the underclassmen wouldn't leave 4 of the top 5 junior QB's declared, thus making this year strong and next year weak.

If you think this is a weak QB class you will never like any QB class or ever want to draft a QB, this argument does not get to be made every single year.
Although I agree, you've been saying that next year's QB class will be horrible for the last three seasons.

Mecca
01-31-2009, 02:06 AM
Although I agree, you've been saying that next year's QB class will be horrible for the last three seasons.

In fairness I said this class would be bad because generally underclassmen QB's don't usually declare, to have 4 of the top 5 declare is frankly unheard of. it completely changed things.

It took what looked to be a strong QB class of next year and moved it into this year.

When I was looking at it last January I didn't think Sanchez was going to be in the draft, hell I didn't think Stafford would end up coming out either, but he answered questions over the season.

Generally with QB's they stay but it didn't happen this time.

beach tribe
01-31-2009, 02:09 AM
In fairness I said this class would be bad because generally underclassmen QB's don't usually declare, to have 4 of the top 5 declare is frankly unheard of. it completely changed things.

It took what looked to be a strong QB class of next year and moved it into this year.

When I was looking at it last January I didn't think Sanchez was going to be in the draft, hell I didn't think Stafford would end up coming out either, but he answered questions over the season.

Generally with QB's they stay but it didn't happen this time.

And I said that there is no way to tell at this point what next years QB class will look like, and you ,and Hamas ripped into me. As far as prospects go, this class looks better IMO.

Mecca
01-31-2009, 02:11 AM
And I said that there is no way to tell at this point what next years QB class will look like, and you ,and Hamas ripped into me. As far as prospects go. This class looks better IMO.

You better watch it, I'm sure the line "there is no Matt Ryan" will be said a million times, by people who didn't like or want to draft Matt Ryan mind you so that will be rather ironic.

beach tribe
01-31-2009, 02:13 AM
You better watch it, I'm sure the line "there is no Matt Ryan" will be said a million times, by people who didn't like or want to draft Matt Ryan mind you so that will be rather ironic.

I think Stafford, and Sanchez both are as good a prospect as Ryan was.

Mecca
01-31-2009, 02:15 AM
I think Stafford, and Sanchez both are as good a prospect as Ryan was.

They're more physically gifted, so on pure talent they are better prospects...I think they're ceilings are higher.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 02:16 AM
In fairness I said this class would be bad because generally underclassmen QB's don't usually declare, to have 4 of the top 5 declare is frankly unheard of. it completely changed things.

It took what looked to be a strong QB class of next year and moved it into this year.

When I was looking at it last January I didn't think Sanchez was going to be in the draft, hell I didn't think Stafford would end up coming out either, but he answered questions over the season.

Generally with QB's they stay but it didn't happen this time.

That's right, I remember you and I going over this when I began my campaign for an alternative to Stafford.

And you know what happened? I summoned every ounce of mojo, wangatude, and sheer will, and I got the job done.

My Kung-Fu is strong like that.:D

beach tribe
01-31-2009, 02:22 AM
That's right, I remember you and I going over this when I began my campaign for an alternative to Stafford.

And you know what happened? I summoned every ounce of mojo, wangatude, and sheer will, and I got the job done.

My Kung-Fu is strong like that.:D

Since that conversation took place 6 months before you even joined the board, you're kung-fu must be stronger that even you believed.

Mecca
01-31-2009, 02:35 AM
Can someone honestly tell me what the total fear of the QB position is about?

Is it Carl snowing people for 20 years? Do people really remember Todd Blackledge I'm not even old enough to remember him playing?

And if someone brings up Brodie Croyle I am going to laugh my ass off.

beach tribe
01-31-2009, 02:45 AM
Can someone honestly tell me what the total fear of the QB position is about?

Is it Carl snowing people for 20 years? Do people really remember Todd Blackledge I'm not even old enough to remember him playing?

And if someone brings up Brodie Croyle I am going to laugh my ass off.

The pussification of America continues LOL.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 02:56 AM
Since that conversation took place 6 months before you even joined the board, you're kung-fu must be stronger that even you believed.

The conversation may have indeed happened before my arrival, but the topic was dead in the water when I got here.

There was one name, and one name alone on the lips of all in-house QB Pimps:

Stafford. The Archives will bear this out.

Ultra Peanut
01-31-2009, 03:39 AM
The question I have to ask is, who are the guys who could salvage next year's class? Bradford, sure, but then... ? Jevan Snead, Case Keenum, Rusty Smith? Would any of them even make a dent in the wall of suck that is Tebow and McCoy?

Mecca
01-31-2009, 03:52 AM
The question I have to ask is, who are the guys who could salvage next year's class? Bradford, sure, but then... ? Jevan Snead, Case Keenum, Rusty Smith? Would any of them even make a dent in the wall of suck that is Tebow and McCoy?

It's not pretty it's guys like

Jake Locker
Kevin Riley

I guess you could throw up guys like Jimmy Clausen and Ryan Mallet for the hell of it, man that class is going to suck even if underclassmen come out, I mean really I don't see anyone beating down the door for Juice Williams.

Anyone who says this is a weak class, should take a look at next years even when you add in potential underclassmen it's horrid.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 04:18 AM
It's not pretty it's guys like

Jake Locker
Kevin Riley

I guess you could throw up guys like Jimmy Clausen and Ryan Mallet for the hell of it, man that class is going to suck even if underclassmen come out, I mean really I don't see anyone beating down the door for Juice Williams.

Anyone who says this is a weak class, should take a look at next years even when you add in potential underclassmen it's horrid.

You know some people won't let up on this "Haley/Crabtree" umbilical-cord, but I think they've forgotten about Bradley. Bradley is a good receiver catching passes from a #2. Hell I'll even be nice and put Franklin back on the roster.
I'm not worried about receivers, I'm worried about a QB who can tailor his touch to each potential recipient of the football.

And augmenting his protection.

Ultra Peanut
01-31-2009, 06:14 AM
Yeah. Compared to the state of most positions, our receivers are golden.

Coogs
01-31-2009, 08:57 AM
This mock from today has us taking Sanchez in the first. And here is the 2nd round. Several players here taken with our pick... or the next several picks... would be viable options.

http://www.walterfootball.com/draft2009.php

Link wouldn't go to Matt McGuire mock updated today, so here are the 2nd round picks from ours down through several picks...

Kansas City Chiefs: Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri
A lot of people reading my mock will be saying, "Maclin is too low." Well, you would have said the same thing if Devin Thomas was at this pick a year ago, and he feel to the second round.

Previous pick; Hakeem Nicks, WR


Saint Louis Rams: Clay Matthews, OLB, USC
The Rams might want to add some toughness and leadership on their defense. Clay Matthews can play SAM and WILL, so the versatility only increases his value. I have the Rams passing up on a quarterback here because of all the money tied up in Marc Bulger.

Previous pick; Macho Harris, CB


Cleveland Browns: Percy Harvin, WR, Florida
I think when it is all said and done, Percy Harvin's major durability concerns will hurt him on Draft Day. The Browns need receiving help, as Braylon Edwards is a question mark and Donte Stallworth disappointed.


Seattle Seahawks: Rashad Johnson, S, Alabama
The Hawks could use a free safety with range in the back of their defense. Rashad Johnson has top-notch intangibles and would be a good fit on this defense.

Previous pick; Gerald McRath, LB






Cincinnati Bengals: Max Unger, OL, Oregon
Max Unger brings supreme versatility to the Bengals offensive line, as he can play both guard and center.

Previous pick; Phil Loadholt, T


Jacksonville Jaguars: Jason Phillilps, ILB, TCU
Mike Peterson won't be back as a free agent and this needs to be filled in the draft. I feel like Phillips is one of the most underrated MIKE linebackers in this class.


Oakland Raiders: Darrius Heyward-Bey, WR, Maryland
Al. Davis. Loves. Forty. Times.


Green Bay Packers: Duke Robinson, G, Oklahoma
Duke Robinson brings much-needed power and attitude to the Packers offensive line. This team needs an infusion of smash-mouth football attitude. Green Bay needs to get back to its traditional roots as a physical team. I think Robinson accomplishes that.


Buffalo Bills: Travis Beckum, TE, Wisconsin
The Bills could really use an elite deep threat over the middle. Travis Beckum has injury concerns after missing the majority of the 2008 season with a fractured left fibula, but I have a feeling some team will take a chance in the second round.


San Francisco 49ers: Josh Freeman, QB, Kansas State
Ultimately, someone will trade up for Josh Freeman very late in the first round or very early in the second. I do not think he will fall this far, but in my mock not many teams need quarterbacks, so he falls.

Previous pick; Nate Davis, QB


Miami Dolphins: Brandon Gibson, WR, Washington State
The most impressive receiver I saw this week was Brandon Gibson, and I can't believe no hype is being thrown his way. Watching him run routes was one of the most fun things to scout for me this week. Great route runners have great work ethic. No one is born a great route runner, and it is something that takes time. When all is said and done, Gibson is going to be a complete steal for someone in the second or third round.


New York Giants: Michael Johnson, DE, Georgia Tech
The Giants will be looking for a situational pass rusher so I think they find their man in Michael Johnson. Note: I have a $,1000 bet with Johnson's agent that he doesn't go in the top nine. Cha-Ching (but Al Davis has me worried).

Chieftain58
01-31-2009, 09:27 AM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

The only defense in the league that was worse than the Chiefs was the 0-16 Detroit Lions. The Chiefs need, at a minimum, three new starters on defense (2 LB's & DE) if we stay in the 4-3. The Chiefs need defensive talent.

If the Chiefs do not swap first round picks with the Patriots for Cassell, the Chiefs would benefit the most by trading down and acquiring more picks and possibly getting more value out of their first round pick instead of reaching for a player. The Chiefs need defense with their first pick.

You must be a Patriots fan trying to get our pick... wtf did Cassell do to impress you that Thigpin didn't? Both QB's are 2nd stringers.. That very idea is pathetic.

Danman
01-31-2009, 09:53 AM
THis is the question nobody seems to answer. The answer on this board is: "if you don't have a surefire #3 pick, then roll over and die, because the trade chart says trading the guy is impossible." Bull-****ing-shit. If you don't have a surefire, "can't miss" pick, then you don't ask for the moon and the stars to trade out of your spot. That's like complaining that you can't sell your Volkswagen because you are asking for $50,000 to sell it.

You're right it is called leverage. And anyone who has ever negotiated knows that when you don't have leverage, you don't ask for more, more, more. If you are in a poor draft class, you don't have leverage and you shouldn't be asking for ridiculous draft compensation. I don't understand why the draft compensation is the same from year to year. It is the stupidest thing I ever heard and ANYONE with experience in negotiations knows how stupid it is to use the same exact benchmark every single year.

I don't think a trade with this pick will happen. I wonder what pick Pioli trades this year for a better pick next year. Does he trade our #2 for a #1 pick next year? A 4th rd for a 2nd round?

And I absolutely think he will examine the anticipated QB class next year before the draft this year, as well as anticipated players at other positions. His rep is he knows all this stuff. He will take QB this year and load up on picks next year when there'll be a lot of good defensive players available.

Coogs
01-31-2009, 10:37 AM
I don't think a trade with this pick will happen. I wonder what pick Pioli trades this year for a better pick next year. Does he trade our #2 for a #1 pick next year? A 4th rd for a 2nd round?

And I absolutely think he will examine the anticipated QB class next year before the draft this year, as well as anticipated players at other positions. His rep is he knows all this stuff. He will take QB this year and load up on picks next year when there'll be a lot of good defensive players available.

I could see this.

TRR
01-31-2009, 11:58 AM
The evaluation of both Stafford and Sanchez is critical. If Pioli and (insert coach) feels like Stafford is the guy, then I would try and trade up to get him. If Sanchez is the guy, then grab him at #3. If either of those two aren't what the Chiefs brass wants, then trade down, and stockpile picks.

KC isn't going to fill every hole they have through this draft. For the most part, the team is going to stay the same. To be competitive next season, I think KC really needs to get two QUALITY starters out of free agency. Maybe that's at RT and DE, maybe that's two LB's, maybe it's a DE and a LB. Either way, I think that's what they have to have...

OnTheWarpath58
01-31-2009, 12:11 PM
The evaluation of both Stafford and Sanchez is critical. If Pioli and (insert coach) feels like Stafford is the guy, then I would try and trade up to get him. If Sanchez is the guy, then grab him at #3. If either of those two aren't what the Chiefs brass wants, then trade down, and stockpile picks.

KC isn't going to fill every hole they have through this draft. For the most part, the team is going to stay the same. To be competitive next season, I think KC really needs to get two QUALITY starters out of free agency. Maybe that's at RT and DE, maybe that's two LB's, maybe it's a DE and a LB. Either way, I think that's what they have to have...

Why would we need to trade up for Stafford?

If Detroit wants him, they aren't going to trade - period.

If they don't, he'll fall to us.

kstater
01-31-2009, 12:14 PM
Why would we need to trade up for Stafford?

If Detroit wants him, they aren't going to trade - period.

If they don't, he'll fall to us.

Logic doesn't fit very well in this thread.

JuicesFlowing
01-31-2009, 12:15 PM
The only problem with drafting a QB at #3 pick is having to pay for it, but with $30 mill cap space, that's gotta help.

DaneMcCloud
01-31-2009, 12:17 PM
The only problem with drafting a QB at #3 pick is having to pay for it, but with $30 mill cap space, that's gotta help.

Rookie cap and cap space are two entirely different animals.

The most important aspect of signing anyone in the top three is signing bonus, which is spread out over the length of the contract.

The salary cap will have no bearing on "paying" for the number three pick.

Rigodan
01-31-2009, 01:34 PM
How about because this QB class is one of the worst in years. Stafford is incredibly inconsistent and Sanchez had one good year with a weak schedule. He did have a good game against penn state, but it takes more than a few good games to be a #3 in my book.

Also, our defense sucks and we have several holes to fill. If we could somehow pull a jimmy johnson and trade one pick for several then maybe we could build a defense.

Another reason, even if the QBs end up being decent, they probably would not be successful with the chiefs. both sanchez and stafford are pocket passers. the chiefs don't know what a pocket is. every QB that tried to be a drop back QB last year got killed. no chance. Peyton Manning wouldn't have been successful with that line.

just a few reasons for ya.

1. Sanchez is the shit watch some damn tape. He also is better suited to survive behind a bad o-line than most other options at this point.

2. Trading down sounds nice but ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. There's no one worthy of trading up for except for Sanchez.

3. Yes defense wins championships but they rarely do so without a franchise qb. I know the Ravens won one with Trent Dilfer but it doesn't happen very often.

There are a lot of really good teams that don't win a Superbowl every year. Look at the Pats last year. Possibly one of the greatest teams of all time and they lost. Look at the Steelers and Giants when they won and the Cardinals this year. Crazy stuff happens in the playoffs. For the Chiefs to win the Superbowl they're probably going to need more than one shot at it with a really good team because of the nature of the playoffs. Teams that are consistently in playoffs with good teams every year have one thing in common. They have great quaterbacks. Patriots/Brady, Colts/Manning, Steelers/Roethlisberger, Chargers/Brees/Rivers, earlier in the deacade you had Eagles/McNabb(before he couldn't decide whether to care or not).

You can also look at the great defenses this decade that didn't have franchise qbs. Baltimore and tampa bay for example. From 2003 to 2007 they finished in the top 6 in total defense every year except for Tampa Bay in 2006. Without a good quarterback those great defenses had a regular season record of 79-81, made the playoffs 4 out of 10 times and won ZERO playoff games. To repeat those defenses finished in the top 6 9/10 and won 0 playoff games.

Sure we could build the defense, hope to get a qb later, and pray to god that everything falls into place like it did for Trent Dilfer. Sure it could happen, but its not likely. Whats more likely is that we go down the same road that TB and Baltimore did in the middle of this decade and the Chiefs of the 90s. And that road doesn't lead to a Superbowl.

One more point. We've seen mediocre defenses get hot in the playoffs twice in the last 3 years(Colts 06, Cards this year) and win games because they had good offenses with good quaterbacks. We've never seen mediocre offenses with average or worse qbs get hot like that ever.

just a few reasons for ya

The Bad Guy
01-31-2009, 01:35 PM
The only problem with drafting a QB at #3 pick is having to pay for it, but with $30 mill cap space, that's gotta help.

Your QB should be the highest salary on your team.

ChiefsCountry
01-31-2009, 01:39 PM
Your QB should be the highest salary on your team.

Its one of the big reasons why we have so much salary cap space. No QB salary.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 02:33 PM
Yeah. Compared to the state of most positions, our receivers are golden.

And they haven't even been pushed towards excellence yet! Herm brought a LOT of stink with him during his tenure, and a better coaching staff will get rid of it.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 02:42 PM
Rookie cap and cap space are two entirely different animals.

The most important aspect of signing anyone in the top three is signing bonus, which is spread out over the length of the contract.

The salary cap will have no bearing on "paying" for the number three pick.

Its one of the big reasons why we have so much salary cap space. No QB salary.

Would it be bold to assume some intelligence on the part of our former 'Wonder Twins' in that they held on to that surplus with an eye towards picking up a QB this year?

warrior
01-31-2009, 02:45 PM
Rookie cap and cap space are two entirely different animals.

The most important aspect of signing anyone in the top three is signing bonus, which is spread out over the length of the contract.

The salary cap will have no bearing on "paying" for the number three pick.




Exactly :rolleyes:

Danman
01-31-2009, 02:49 PM
The only problem with drafting a QB at #3 pick is having to pay for it, but with $30 mill cap space, that's gotta help.

Stop it, stop it, STOP IT

You wanna be an elite franchise, You HAVE to have an elite QB, and you HAVE to pay him more money than you're personally going to make in your life. It's the cost of doing business in the NFL. You wanna pinch pennies. get a retread QB and go 9-7 every year. You wanna go to the Super Bowl? You gotta be willing to do the things to get there. Developing a franchise QB is step 1. Every other position on the field is secondary

Danman
01-31-2009, 02:52 PM
1. Sanchez is the shit watch some damn tape. He also is better suited to survive behind a bad o-line than most other options at this point.

2. Trading down sounds nice but ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. There's no one worthy of trading up for except for Sanchez.

3. Yes defense wins championships but they rarely do so without a franchise qb. I know the Ravens won one with Trent Dilfer but it doesn't happen very often.

There are a lot of really good teams that don't win a Superbowl every year. Look at the Pats last year. Possibly one of the greatest teams of all time and they lost. Look at the Steelers and Giants when they won and the Cardinals this year. Crazy stuff happens in the playoffs. For the Chiefs to win the Superbowl they're probably going to need more than one shot at it with a really good team because of the nature of the playoffs. Teams that are consistently in playoffs with good teams every year have one thing in common. They have great quaterbacks. Patriots/Brady, Colts/Manning, Steelers/Roethlisberger, Chargers/Brees/Rivers, earlier in the deacade you had Eagles/McNabb(before he couldn't decide whether to care or not).

You can also look at the great defenses this decade that didn't have franchise qbs. Baltimore and tampa bay for example. From 2003 to 2007 they finished in the top 6 in total defense every year except for Tampa Bay in 2006. Without a good quarterback those great defenses had a regular season record of 79-81, made the playoffs 4 out of 10 times and won ZERO playoff games. To repeat those defenses finished in the top 6 9/10 and won 0 playoff games.

Sure we could build the defense, hope to get a qb later, and pray to god that everything falls into place like it did for Trent Dilfer. Sure it could happen, but its not likely. Whats more likely is that we go down the same road that TB and Baltimore did in the middle of this decade and the Chiefs of the 90s. And that road doesn't lead to a Superbowl.

One more point. We've seen mediocre defenses get hot in the playoffs twice in the last 3 years(Colts 06, Cards this year) and win games because they had good offenses with good quaterbacks. We've never seen mediocre offenses with average or worse qbs get hot like that ever.

just a few reasons for ya

Outstanding Post, and another Noob. Rep to ya

RustShack
01-31-2009, 02:54 PM
The only problem with drafting a QB at #3 pick is having to pay for it, but with $30 mill cap space, that's gotta help.

The #3 pick is going to get a huge contract no matter what position they play...

DeezNutz
01-31-2009, 02:55 PM
1. Sanchez is the shit watch some damn tape. He also is better suited to survive behind a bad o-line than most other options at this point.

2. Trading down sounds nice but ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. There's no one worthy of trading up for except for Sanchez.

3. Yes defense wins championships but they rarely do so without a franchise qb. I know the Ravens won one with Trent Dilfer but it doesn't happen very often.


Stop it, stop it, STOP IT

You wanna be an elite franchise, You HAVE to have an elite QB, and you HAVE to pay him more money than you're personally going to make in your life. It's the cost of doing business in the NFL. You wanna pinch pennies. get a retread QB and go 9-7 every year. You wanna go to the Super Bowl? You gotta be willing to do the things to get there. Developing a franchise QB is step 1. Every other position on the field is secondary

I can't believe how many vets are using alternate accounts these days.

Chiefscountry, OTW, TTC, Mecca, stop.

Good job, n00bs!

chiefzilla1501
01-31-2009, 03:07 PM
Can someone honestly tell me what the total fear of the QB position is about?

Is it Carl snowing people for 20 years? Do people really remember Todd Blackledge I'm not even old enough to remember him playing?

And if someone brings up Brodie Croyle I am going to laugh my ass off.

The reason why there might be some reluctance is that there are many on this board who believe that you take the best QB in the draft... period. And that's their entire argument. I can buy into taking Stafford or Sanchez, but only if and ONLY IF Pioli does a complete evaluation of them and gives them a top 5 grade.

The fear is not about using a high pick on a QB, it's about overrating a QB because he's on the top of the board. Teams have a tendency to overrate the best QB in the draft, as they did when Alex Smith and Jamarcus Russell came out--nobody was really excited about either of those two guys, but the 49ers and Raiders felt "pressured" to do it anyway. And the reason this is no slam dunk is that while Stafford/Sanchez are better than Jamarcus/Smith, they aren't slam dunks like Carson Palmer/Eli Manning are. I think you will hear a LOT of mixed reviews from the experts on these guys--many will list them as consensus top 5 picks, and many will question whether either truly belongs in the top 10.

People consistently bring up Matt Ryan, but they fail to bring up that there are always QBs like Brady Quinn and Aaron Rodgers that are projected in the top 5 or 10 and then nosedive into the top 25. Miami was railed on for not taking Quinn; when Quinn fell to the top 25, suddenly Miami didn't look so stupid.

I won't be upset whether we take a QB or we don't. I just don't buy into the logic that it's a slam dunk.

Danman
01-31-2009, 03:14 PM
Mecca I think the fear does indeed come from 20 years of Carl stating that a first round pick should be someone to help your team win games now and not hold a clipboard for a year. I remember Carl saying that lots of times and he's brainwashed a large pool of fans. That's why so many salivate over the possiblity of drafting a great right tackle every year.

chiefzilla1501
01-31-2009, 03:27 PM
Mecca I think the fear does indeed come from 20 years of Carl stating that a first round pick should be someone to help your team win games now and not hold a clipboard for a year. I remember Carl saying that lots of times and he's brainwashed a large pool of fans. That's why so many salivate over the possiblity of drafting a great right tackle every year.

Well, let's be clear about something. Carl Peterson would have built a Super Bowl champion despite having a lousy QB if he would have been better at drafting any players... period. It has nothing to do with his inability to draft a QB; it was about his inability to draft anybody. I am pretty confident that if during 1999-2003, we brought in starting-calibre players every year through the draft, we would have made a Super Bowl with Trent Green at the helm.

When you whiff on almost every draft pick in a 10-year span, there are far bigger problems than the QB you have.

jeffp12
01-31-2009, 03:29 PM
The reason why there might be some reluctance is that there are many on this board who believe that you take the best QB in the draft... period. And that's their entire argument. I can buy into taking Stafford or Sanchez, but only if and ONLY IF Pioli does a complete evaluation of them and gives them a top 5 grade.

The fear is not about using a high pick on a QB, it's about overrating a QB because he's on the top of the board. Teams have a tendency to overrate the best QB in the draft, as they did when Alex Smith and Jamarcus Russell came out--nobody was really excited about either of those two guys, but the 49ers and Raiders felt "pressured" to do it anyway. And the reason this is no slam dunk is that while Stafford/Sanchez are better than Jamarcus/Smith, they aren't slam dunks like Carson Palmer/Eli Manning are. I think you will hear a LOT of mixed reviews from the experts on these guys--many will list them as consensus top 5 picks, and many will question whether either truly belongs in the top 10.

People consistently bring up Matt Ryan, but they fail to bring up that there are always QBs like Brady Quinn and Aaron Rodgers that are projected in the top 5 or 10 and then nosedive into the top 25. Miami was railed on for not taking Quinn; when Quinn fell to the top 25, suddenly Miami didn't look so stupid.

I won't be upset whether we take a QB or we don't. I just don't buy into the logic that it's a slam dunk.


My sentiments exactly. I look at the record of teams picking Joey Harrington or Alex Smith, Andre Ware, and Ryan Leaf.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 03:42 PM
Well, let's be clear about something. Carl Peterson would have built a Super Bowl champion despite having a lousy QB if he would have been better at drafting any players... period. It has nothing to do with his inability to draft a QB; it was about his inability to draft anybody. I am pretty confident that if during 1999-2003, we brought in starting-calibre players every year through the draft, we would have made a Super Bowl with Trent Green at the helm.

When you whiff on almost every draft pick in a 10-year span, there are far bigger problems than the QB you have.


:spock::doh!:

90's Defense + Legitimate QB = Super Bowl. And yes, it WAS fear of drafting a QB.

jeffp12
01-31-2009, 03:49 PM
You want the Bengals moving up from 6 to 3 to give up a 2nd and 4th round pick just to move up 3 spots? For Jacksonville to move up 5 spots you want their 2nd and 3rd round picks? It's obvious that you don't want to trade down and therefore have decided that the cost to trade down should be so high that no team would ever offer that much.

Look at the Manning Rivers trade. This trade was driven by a craze over Eli because he was gonna be the next Peyton. The chiefs aren't sitting on a hot commodity like Manning. The Chargers essentially swap down from 1st to 4th overall in exchange for a 3rd rounder and the next year's 1st and 5th round. What ends up happening is the chargers get Rivers and Shawne Merriman. That's a terrible move for the Giants, I think that if they had Rivers and Merriman they would be better off.

If you are sitting on a pick and aren't that sold on your options, then take a deal and move down, even if all you get for moving down a few spots is a 2nd or 3rd rounder. The chiefs have huge depth problems, we need as many picks as we can get. Hell, I'd move down five spots in exchange for a 3rd, 4th, and 6th rounder, good players can be found anywhere in the draft, I'd stockpile as many picks as I can. Plus picking someone so high means a huge contract regardless of position.

chiefzilla1501
01-31-2009, 04:00 PM
Stop it, stop it, STOP IT

You wanna be an elite franchise, You HAVE to have an elite QB, and you HAVE to pay him more money than you're personally going to make in your life. It's the cost of doing business in the NFL. You wanna pinch pennies. get a retread QB and go 9-7 every year. You wanna go to the Super Bowl? You gotta be willing to do the things to get there. Developing a franchise QB is step 1. Every other position on the field is secondary

You don't have to have an elite QB. That is a huge misconception. People look at Brady and Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner as validation to that point, but they are the rare handful of QBs who are so good that they can make multiple Super Bowls (even Peyton hasn't done that).

Here's an interesting stat: 5 of the last 10 QBs had less than 3,500 passing yards (Big Ben twice, Grossman, Eli, Hasselbeck). Of the 5 who had over 3,500 yards, they were Brady twice, Manning, Warner who are elite, and McNabb (you can hold your opinion about him as to whether he's elite). What's funny is that two of those three QBs aren't even first round picks.

This is not compelling evidence. But it should prove that if you are not one of the 3 or 4 teams lucky to have an elite QB, then you need to have a solid QB and he needs to be surrounded with a lot of talent. But he doesn't have to be elite. When a QB takes the team to the Super Bowl while barely netting over 3,000 yards, that tells you pretty strongly that he had an outstanding supporting cast to back him up.

I know a lot of people disagree, but if you're an offensive-minded team you can't win without an elite QB. If you're a defensive-minded team, you can win with a great game manager. If you're somewhere in-between, you need solid QB play but you don't have to be outstanding. Yes, a good QB is always a great thing to have. Yes, your chances of getting a good QB are improved in the first round. But we have to stop arguing that you need an elite QB. Unless we are one of the 5% who can land an elite QB, we have to build a solid team around him. You can build your franchise around a solid QB, even if he's not elite.

DaneMcCloud
01-31-2009, 04:00 PM
You want the Bengals moving up from 6 to 3 to give up a 2nd and 4th round pick just to move up 3 spots? For Jacksonville to move up 5 spots you want their 2nd and 3rd round picks? It's obvious that you don't want to trade down and therefore have decided that the cost to trade down should be so high that no team would ever offer that much.

Look at the Manning Rivers trade. This trade was driven by a craze over Eli because he was gonna be the next Peyton. The chiefs aren't sitting on a hot commodity like Manning. The Chargers essentially swap down from 1st to 4th overall in exchange for a 3rd rounder and the next year's 1st and 5th round. What ends up happening is the chargers get Rivers and Shawne "roidman" Merriman. That's a terrible move for the Giants, I think that if they had Rivers and Merriman they would be better off.

If you are sitting on a pick and aren't that sold on your options, then take a deal and move down, even if all you get for moving down a few spots is a 2nd or 3rd rounder. The chiefs have huge depth problems, we need as many picks as we can get. Hell, I'd move down five spots in exchange for a 3rd, 4th, and 6th rounder, good players can be found anywhere in the draft, I'd stockpile as many picks as I can. Plus picking someone so high means a huge contract regardless of position.

Giants have won a Super Bowl since that trade.

The Chargers have not.

Giants win.

ChiefsCountry
01-31-2009, 04:03 PM
Giants have won a Super Bowl since that trade.

The Chargers have not.

Giants win.

:clap:

Coogs
01-31-2009, 04:08 PM
You don't have to have an elite QB. That is a huge misconception. People look at Brady and Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner as validation to that point, but they are the rare handful of QBs who are so good that they can make multiple Super Bowls (even Peyton hasn't done that).

Here's an interesting stat: 5 of the last 10 QBs had less than 3,500 passing yards (Big Ben twice, Grossman, Eli, Hasselbeck). Of the 5 who had over 3,500 yards, they were Brady twice, Manning, Warner who are elite, and McNabb (you can hold your opinion about him as to whether he's elite). What's funny is that two of those three QBs aren't even first round picks.

This is not compelling evidence. But it should prove that if you are not one of the 3 or 4 teams lucky to have an elite QB, then you need to have a solid QB and he needs to be surrounded with a lot of talent. But he doesn't have to be elite. When a QB takes the team to the Super Bowl while barely netting over 3,000 yards, that tells you pretty strongly that he had an outstanding supporting cast to back him up.

I know a lot of people disagree, but if you're an offensive-minded team you can't win without an elite QB. If you're a defensive-minded team, you can win with a great game manager. If you're somewhere in-between, you need solid QB play but you don't have to be outstanding. Yes, a good QB is always a great thing to have. Yes, your chances of getting a good QB are improved in the first round. But we have to stop arguing that you need an elite QB. Unless we are one of the 5% who can land an elite QB, we have to build a solid team around him. You can build your franchise around a solid QB, even if he's not elite.


It's not so much about the yards. It's about the ablility to strap the team to your back and move them down the field under the harshest of circumstances. The ability to make the throw that many QB's can not make to keep the drive alive.

Many QB's have been able to throw for a ton of yards. Shoot, even during the 80's we had one in Kenney. Only the elite QB's can be game changers time and time again.

When you have a chance to get one, you have to do it. Even if they don't pan out.

Danman
01-31-2009, 04:16 PM
My sentiments exactly. I look at the record of teams picking Joey Harrington or Alex Smith, Andre Ware, and Ryan Leaf.

Picking those players where they were picked made sense for each of those teams, as did Tony Mandarich, Brian Bosworth, Ryan Sims, or any the big three from Penn State-Curtis Enis, Kijana Carter, and Blair Thomas. First round flops happen at every position and they all hurt. The records of teams selecting all these flops that were not QB were not very good either. I don't agree with this argument at all.

Danman
01-31-2009, 04:22 PM
It's not so much about the yards. It's about the ablility to strap the team to your back and move them down the field under the harshest of circumstances. The ability to make the throw that many QB's can not make to keep the drive alive.

Many QB's have been able to throw for a ton of yards. Shoot, even during the 80's we had one in Kenney. Only the elite QB's can be game changers time and time again.

When you have a chance to get one, you have to do it. Even if they don't pan out.

Good post and Bill Kenney was absolutely the best QB to complete passes while horizontal and being driven into the ground.

It's the ability of a QB, when down by 5 with under 2 minutes to go, to step in a huddle and congvince 10 other men that going on an 85 yard drive for a touchdown is the easiest thing in the world, and then going out and proving to them, everybody else that it is

Coogs
01-31-2009, 04:25 PM
Good post and Bill Kenney was absolutely the best QB to complete passes while horizontal and being driven into the ground.

It's the ability of a QB, when down by 5 with under 2 minutes to go, to step in a huddle and congvince 10 other men that going on an 85 yard drive for a touchdown is the easiest thing in the world, and then going out and proving to them, everybody else that it is

:clap:

chiefzilla1501
01-31-2009, 04:34 PM
It's not so much about the yards. It's about the ablility to strap the team to your back and move them down the field under the harshest of circumstances. The ability to make the throw that many QB's can not make to keep the drive alive.

Many QB's have been able to throw for a ton of yards. Shoot, even during the 80's we had one in Kenney. Only the elite QB's can be game changers time and time again.

When you have a chance to get one, you have to do it. Even if they don't pan out.

I agree but not entirely. The difference between Trent Green and Ben Roethlisberger is not so much the late-game clutch component, but the fact that Roethlisberger's supporting cast continually puts the Steelers in a position to win by forcing punts in the last 5 minutes or by holding the team to a low score so that Big Ben can make big plays when they count. Put Big Ben on any other roster and guaranteed his big game capability plummets. Trent Green put up a lot of last minute drives, only to have the defense give up a game-winning drive in the last few minutes.

Unless you have an elite QB, you usually cannot make the Super Bowl unless you have an outstanding supporting cast. On the flip side, you likely won't make the Super Bowl with below average to average QB play.

LIke I said, you need a solid QB and your chances are better if you draft a QB in the first round. But I would argue that most Super Bowl QBs (apart from the big three) only make it to the big game because their teammates make them look a hell of a lot better than they are. I think most would agree that guys like Big Ben and Delhomme and Hasselbeck probably would never make the Super Bowl with an even slight downgrade of the talent that surrounded them.

Reaper16
01-31-2009, 04:35 PM
Trent Green put up a lot of last minute drives, only to have the defense give up a game-winning drive in the last few minutes.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/fail-owned-time-fail.jpg

Rigodan
01-31-2009, 04:45 PM
The difference between Trent Green and Ben Roethlisberger is not so much the late-game clutch component

I'd say that is entirely the difference between the two. Big Ben has been outstanding in the 4th quater this season. It could even be said that that is the only time that he plays well. My memory isn't as good as I'd like it to be but I remember Trent failing to deliver a lot when it was absolutely necessary.

milkman
01-31-2009, 05:59 PM
I'd say that is entirely the difference between the two. Big Ben has been outstanding in the 4th quater this season. It could even be said that that is the only time that he plays well. My memory isn't as good as I'd like it to be but I remember Trent failing to deliver a lot when it was absolutely necessary.

I had a lot of respect for Green and what he did as the Chiefs QB, but I have the same memory.

He had a couple of late game drives, but for the most part, he really wasn't a great late game QB.

He actually had a tendency to take stupid sacks or make bad throws in the clutch.

theorangelion
01-31-2009, 06:06 PM
I had a lot of respect for Green and what he did as the Chiefs QB, but I have the same memory.

He had a couple of late game drives, but for the most part, he really wasn't a great late game QB.

He actually had a tendency to take stupid sacks or make bad throws in the clutch.

Trent Green was a great QB for the first 3 quarters but when the 4th came he definitely lost his confidence.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 07:23 PM
Trent Green was a great QB for the first 3 quarters but when the 4th came he definitely lost his confidence.

If Trent Green were a character in a road runner cartoon, his Latin designation would be "Mouthus-Breatherus".

chubychecker
01-31-2009, 07:31 PM
sorry I couldn't read this whole thread, I read through the first nine pages and nobody pointed out the fact that the chiefs originally drafted Fitzpatrick from Harvard. He couldn't stay on the team with the wonderful depth we have had over the last few years.

ChiefsCountry
01-31-2009, 07:33 PM
nobody pointed out the fact that the chiefs originally drafted Fitzpatrick from Harvard. He couldn't stay on the team with the wonderful depth we have had over the last few years.

You are wrong the Chiefs didn't drafted Fitzpatrick. That would be the Rams.

chiefzilla1501
01-31-2009, 07:53 PM
Trent Green was a great QB for the first 3 quarters but when the 4th came he definitely lost his confidence.

I stand by my point.

Trent Green was very effective in the 4th quarter. But when you put up 14 points in the 4th quarter and your defense consistently gives up 17-21 points, what are you supposed to do? The difference is that Big Ben is allowed to make mistakes in the 4th quarter. If he fails on one drive, his defense will pick up for him. If he fails on the next, the defense will pick up for him. Pittsburgh has one of the best (if not the best) 4th quarter defenses in the game.

How many games did the Chiefs lose on the last drive because the defense gave up a touchdown in the last 5 minutes? How many games did our defense stay on the field so long in the 4th quarter that our offense never got the ball back? How many games did Green get the ball back with lousy field position with less than a minute left in the game--most of the time, we got the ball back with 80 yards to go and 30-45 seconds on the clock.

That's the distinction. Put Big Ben on the 1999-2005 Chiefs, and while he would be a productive QB, I guarantee he would be an average late-game QB at best. Defenses put QBs in a position to win games because they 1) protect leads; 2) make clutch stops when they matter most; 3) they force punts late in the game giving your offense a chance to score with plenty of time left. Green didn't have any of those things.

Count Alex's Wins
01-31-2009, 07:58 PM
Finally I agree with Chiefzilla on something.

Trent got a lot of guff because of the terrible defenses he was saddled with. I miss him.

Mecca
01-31-2009, 08:07 PM
If Trent Green had played behind the current Steelers line he would have gotten earholed, he wasn't as mobile or as big as Ben is.

Trent Green ALWAYS held the ball to long on most teams he'd have been sacked a ton of times.

milkman
01-31-2009, 08:10 PM
I stand by my point.

Trent Green was very effective in the 4th quarter. But when you put up 14 points in the 4th quarter and your defense consistently gives up 17-21 points, what are you supposed to do? The difference is that Big Ben is allowed to make mistakes in the 4th quarter. If he fails on one drive, his defense will pick up for him. If he fails on the next, the defense will pick up for him. Pittsburgh has one of the best (if not the best) 4th quarter defenses in the game.

How many games did the Chiefs lose on the last drive because the defense gave up a touchdown in the last 5 minutes? How many games did our defense stay on the field so long in the 4th quarter that our offense never got the ball back? How many games did Green get the ball back with lousy field position with less than a minute left in the game--most of the time, we got the ball back with 80 yards to go and 30-45 seconds on the clock.

That's the distinction. Put Big Ben on the 1999-2005 Chiefs, and while he would be a productive QB, I guarantee he would be an average late-game QB at best. Defenses put QBs in a position to win games because they 1) protect leads; 2) make clutch stops when they matter most; 3) they force punts late in the game giving your offense a chance to score with plenty of time left. Green didn't have any of those things.

Even Steve Bono led the Chiefs on a last minute TD drive of about 80 yards with about a minute left.

As good as Trent Green was, he was not clutch player.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 08:11 PM
I stand by my point.

Trent Green was very effective in the 4th quarter. But when you put up 14 points in the 4th quarter and your defense consistently gives up 17-21 points, what are you supposed to do? .

:hmmm:...Build a balanced team?

Finally I agree with Chiefzilla on something.

Trent got a lot of guff because of the terrible defenses he was saddled with. I miss him.

"Mr. Wendler, your ball washing towel is ready for pick up at the Pharmacy".

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 08:16 PM
If Trent Green had played behind the current Steelers line he would have gotten earholed, he wasn't as mobile or as big as Ben is.

Trent Green ALWAYS held the ball to long on most teams he'd have been sacked a ton of times.

Where did this "Steelers have no O-Line" mythology spring from? Yes, Ben is hard to tackle but in order to do so, you have to get close enough to hit and wrap up.

Did not see! Do not see! WILL NOT see!

ChiefsCountry
01-31-2009, 08:22 PM
Where did this "Steelers have no O-Line" mythology spring from?

Have you seen their sack total?

Mecca
01-31-2009, 08:23 PM
Where did this "Steelers have no O-Line" mythology spring from? Yes, Ben is hard to tackle but in order to do so, you have to get close enough to hit and wrap up.

Did not see! Do not see! WILL NOT see!

Their line is not good at pass blocking he gets hit more times than any QB really should.

Darth CarlSatan
01-31-2009, 08:33 PM
Have you seen their sack total?

Their line is not good at pass blocking he gets hit more times than any QB really should.

What I saw, was Rothlesburger shucking and jiving pass-rushers two weeks ago. He doesn't have a long-lasting pocket, I'll give you that. But considering that Baltimore's defense was ranked 2 or 3 going in to the game, I'd say the Pitt O-line performed quite well.
They sure as hell won't have to perform at that level Sunday. Lucky for them.

ChiefsCountry
01-31-2009, 08:34 PM
Remember the mock last year when Milk took guards like crazy to fix Pittsburgh :)

Rigodan
01-31-2009, 08:35 PM
I was under the impression that their line sucked too but it didn't seem like they were that bad in the Ravens game.

milkman
01-31-2009, 08:36 PM
What I saw, was Rothlesburger shucking and jiving pass-rushers two weeks ago. He doesn't have a long-lasting pocket, I'll give you that. But considering that Baltimore's defense was ranked 2 or 3 going in to the game, I'd say the Pitt O-line performed quite well.
They sure as hell won't have to perform at that level Sunday. Lucky for them.

Regardless of Big Ben's ability to escape the rush, that line is pretty mediocre, and he did take a lot of sacks and a lot of hits.

The point is, he made plays when his team needed him to make plays.

milkman
01-31-2009, 08:38 PM
Remember the mock last year when Milk took guards like crazy to fix Pittsburgh :)

Yeah.

I took a lot of shit for that, but I think I knew what I was doing.

Rigodan
01-31-2009, 08:45 PM
Regardless of Big Ben's ability to escape the rush, that line is pretty mediocre, and he did take a lot of sacks and a lot of hits.

The point is, he made plays when his team needed him to make plays.

I thought Ben played pretty terrible that game. He made one play to Santonio Holmes and that could have easily been intercepted if the defender hadn't stumbled. Lucky for Ben the Steelers Defense is absurdly good and Flacco shit his pants.

Chiefnj2
01-31-2009, 08:50 PM
Does anyone have Tren't 4th quarter stats, because I for one don't recall him being poor in the 4th quarter. In fact, I distinctly remember being confident that as long as KC got the ball back with 2 minutes left and within 7 points the game was going into OT. I remember hoping the D would give up a quick 7 and get the O back out to re-take the lead.

Chiefnj2
01-31-2009, 08:56 PM
Trent Green Situational Stats.

2005
1st Quarter 111 67 60.4 784 7.1 50 1 0 35 31.5 9 5 84.8

2nd Quarter 152 93 61.2 1,194 7.9 54 5 4 51 33.6 17 8 85.8

3rd Quarter 105 67 63.8 873 8.3 55 3 3 39 37.1 10 8 87.5

4th Quarter 139 90 64.7 1,163 8.4 60 8 3 57 41.0 15 11 101.1

2004
1st Quarter 100 73 73.0 1,020 10.2 65 7 2 44 44.0 17 5 120.4

2nd Quarter 178 110 61.8 1,328 7.5 58 7 5 66 37.1 13 5 86.1

3rd Quarter 129 91 70.5 1,148 8.9 48 5 3 60 46.5 17 7 101.2

4th Quarter 149 95 63.8 1,095 7.3 70 8 7 57 38.3 12 15 84.2

4th Quarter within 7 143 91 63.6 1,032 7.2 70 7 7 54 37.8 11 14 81.1

2003
1st Quarter 125 83 66.4 1,008 8.1 67 4 4 47 37.6 16 4 88.4

2nd Quarter 171 107 62.6 1,309 7.7 63 11 2 66 38.6 20 7 102.7

3rd Quarter 121 73 60.3 872 7.2 40 5 3 45 37.2 8 3 85.8

4th Quarter 134 84 62.7 1,011 7.5 67 4 3 52 38.8 12 6 86.4

4th Quarter within 7 96 64 66.7 722 7.5 67 3 2 39 40.6 8 2 90.7

DaneMcCloud
02-01-2009, 12:27 AM
Yeah.

I took a lot of shit for that, but I think I knew what I was doing.

You were right.

Their line absolutely sucks.

#22 ranked offense.

They're going to get spanked tomorrow and I'd be surprised if it's even close.

Darth CarlSatan
02-01-2009, 12:48 AM
You were right.

Their line absolutely sucks.

#22 ranked offense.

They're going to get spanked tomorrow and I'd be surprised if it's even close.

Who?

milkman
02-01-2009, 06:22 AM
You were right.

Their line absolutely sucks.

#22 ranked offense.

They're going to get spanked tomorrow and I'd be surprised if it's even close.

Here's the thing.

I took Branden Albert in the first with the idea that he would be transitioned to OT, and Chilo Rachal in the second.

This was long before I heard any whispers from the media draft gurus that Albert could be moved in the NFL.

The rest of the mock drafters saw the first two picks as guards, and a couple of them were just merciless in thier attacks (all in fun).

I'm still waiting for Direckshun to give me my props for that pick.

chiefs99
02-01-2009, 09:17 AM
if the pats dont sign cassel sign him with the third pick draft crabtree sign RT jordan gross and the offense will be fixed. sign 2 LBs and julius peppers

Danman
02-01-2009, 09:24 AM
if the pats dont sign cassel sign him with the third pick draft crabtree sign RT jordan gross and the offense will be fixed. sign 2 LBs and julius peppers

Why stop there. I like your idea. Let's also sign Bruce Sprinsteen, and Barrack Obama too.

milkman
02-01-2009, 09:38 AM
Why stop there. I like your idea. Let's also sign Bruce Sprinsteen, and Barrack Obama too.

LMAO

Now, this is a n00b that gets it.

Welcome aboard, Danman.

chiefs99
02-01-2009, 02:25 PM
chiefs have more than enough money to make all those moves :D :D

Coogs
02-01-2009, 10:07 PM
OK, If that game does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Chiefs should draft QB #1 then I don't know what it will take to convince you otherwise.

Both QB's were incredible.


Whoops! Needed to edit that a little bit.

beach tribe
02-01-2009, 10:10 PM
I thought Ben played pretty terrible that game. He made one play to Santonio Holmes and that could have easily been intercepted if the defender hadn't stumbled. Lucky for Ben the Steelers Defense is absurdly good and Flacco shit his pants.

How the hell is 21-30 1td 1int, and an absolut CLUTCH drive to win the fuqin superbowl of all games terrible? You people are nuts.

JASONSAUTO
02-01-2009, 10:11 PM
OK, If that game does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Chiefs should not draft QB #1 then I don't know what it will take to convince you otherwise.

Both QB's were incredible.

neither was a #1?

beach tribe
02-01-2009, 10:12 PM
You were right.

Their line absolutely sucks.

#22 ranked offense.

They're going to get spanked tomorrow and I'd be surprised if it's even close.

Dane is prophetic.

DaneMcCloud
02-01-2009, 10:13 PM
neither was a #1?

Big Ben was a first rounder.

#11 overall.

Not a bad first round for QB's.

beach tribe
02-01-2009, 10:13 PM
neither was a #1?

Ben was a #1 pick. If we pick a QB in the 1st, he will be our #1 pick. Get it?

DaneMcCloud
02-01-2009, 10:14 PM
Dane is prophetic.

Not so much

JASONSAUTO
02-01-2009, 10:14 PM
Big Ben was a first rounder.

#11 overall.

Not a bad first round for QB's.

i knew that look at the post i quoted

DaneMcCloud
02-01-2009, 10:16 PM
i knew that look at the post i quoted

I must have drank too much during the game because I don't understand.

Sorry.

KCChiefsFan88
02-01-2009, 10:16 PM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick.

That is a joke right?

beach tribe
02-01-2009, 10:17 PM
Not so much

Just messin with ya. Nobody can predict the NFL anymore. Although I did pick the Steelers to win the SB back in october. My casino cash proves it too.

DaneMcCloud
02-01-2009, 10:17 PM
That is a joke right?

No, he's serious.

And he's previously stated that throughout this entire thread, no one's proved otherwise.

:spock:

DaneMcCloud
02-01-2009, 10:19 PM
Just messin with ya. Nobody can predict the NFL anymore. Although I did pick the Steelers to win the SB back in october. My casino cash proves it too.

I really did think the Cards offense would be too much for the Steelers. I just didn't anticipate the Cards to sleepwalk through nearly the first 40 minutes of the game.

It was a great game and I picked the wrong team.

banyon
02-01-2009, 10:20 PM
OK, If that game does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Chiefs should not draft QB #1 then I don't know what it will take to convince you otherwise.

Both QB's were incredible.

WTF?

Darth CarlSatan
02-01-2009, 10:25 PM
i knew that look at the post i quoted

Strong, the drink-blur is, but I get what you're saying. All I know is that Coogs post proves that he still knows shite.

Mecca
02-01-2009, 10:25 PM
If that game didn't show you how much you need a QB you'll never be convinced.

Darth CarlSatan
02-01-2009, 10:26 PM
I really did think the Cards offense would be too much for the Steelers. I just didn't anticipate the Cards to sleepwalk through nearly the first 40 minutes of the game.

It was a great game and I picked the wrong team.

Good lord, Dane...:doh!:

Danman
02-02-2009, 06:01 AM
If that game didn't show you how much you need a QB you'll never be convinced.

OK, If that game does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Chiefs should not draft QB #1 then I don't know what it will take to convince you otherwise.

Both QB's were incredible.


Exactly. No more Thigpins, no more Fitzpatricks, no more Croyles, no more Bonos, no more Grbecs, no more game managers.

We need to draft and develop a playmaker at QB

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 10:43 AM
1. Sanchez is the shit watch some damn tape. He also is better suited to survive behind a bad o-line than most other options at this point.

2. Trading down sounds nice but ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. There's no one worthy of trading up for except for Sanchez.

3. Yes defense wins championships but they rarely do so without a franchise qb. I know the Ravens won one with Trent Dilfer but it doesn't happen very often.

There are a lot of really good teams that don't win a Superbowl every year. Look at the Pats last year. Possibly one of the greatest teams of all time and they lost. Look at the Steelers and Giants when they won and the Cardinals this year. Crazy stuff happens in the playoffs. For the Chiefs to win the Superbowl they're probably going to need more than one shot at it with a really good team because of the nature of the playoffs. Teams that are consistently in playoffs with good teams every year have one thing in common. They have great quaterbacks. Patriots/Brady, Colts/Manning, Steelers/Roethlisberger, Chargers/Brees/Rivers, earlier in the deacade you had Eagles/McNabb(before he couldn't decide whether to care or not).

You can also look at the great defenses this decade that didn't have franchise qbs. Baltimore and tampa bay for example. From 2003 to 2007 they finished in the top 6 in total defense every year except for Tampa Bay in 2006. Without a good quarterback those great defenses had a regular season record of 79-81, made the playoffs 4 out of 10 times and won ZERO playoff games. To repeat those defenses finished in the top 6 9/10 and won 0 playoff games.

Sure we could build the defense, hope to get a qb later, and pray to god that everything falls into place like it did for Trent Dilfer. Sure it could happen, but its not likely. Whats more likely is that we go down the same road that TB and Baltimore did in the middle of this decade and the Chiefs of the 90s. And that road doesn't lead to a Superbowl.

One more point. We've seen mediocre defenses get hot in the playoffs twice in the last 3 years(Colts 06, Cards this year) and win games because they had good offenses with good quaterbacks. We've never seen mediocre offenses with average or worse qbs get hot like that ever.

just a few reasons for ya

best argument yet... and I agree with with many of your opinions. BUT I still believe the probability of success with a young QB behind our line is very low. I really don't believe many QB's in the NFL could be successful with our current offensive line. We our current line, we need a QB that can run around like Big Ben did in the superbowl and buy enough time with his feet to make a play with his arm. I don't think Sanchez is that guy right now.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 10:52 AM
Mecca I think the fear does indeed come from 20 years of Carl stating that a first round pick should be someone to help your team win games now and not hold a clipboard for a year. I remember Carl saying that lots of times and he's brainwashed a large pool of fans. That's why so many salivate over the possiblity of drafting a great right tackle every year.

I think it has more to do with watching our QBs being carried off the field right after getting killed. And watching many rookie QBs fail under the same circumstances (poor line).

I don't want to waste the highest pick the chiefs have had in years. I would rather trade down and try to pick up a few players to fix the defense.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 10:56 AM
I think it has more to do with watching our QBs being carried off the field right after getting killed. And watching many rookie QBs fail under the same circumstances (poor line).

I don't want to waste the highest pick the chiefs have had in years. I would rather trade down and try to pick up a few players to fix the defense.

Or, it could just be that Trent Green took a vicious hit OUTSIDE the pocket, that Brodie Croyle is physically fragile and that Damon Huard is mentally fragile.

Notice how Tyler Thigpen played behind the SAME LINE as Croyle and Huard, yet managed to stay healthy?

My God, people will make up any excuse possible.

This team goes NOWHERE without a franchise QB.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 11:08 AM
Exactly. No more Thigpins, no more Fitzpatricks, no more Croyles, no more Bonos, no more Grbecs, no more game managers.

We need to draft and develop a playmaker at QB

Yep, that's the one!

Or, it could just be that Trent Green took a vicious hit OUTSIDE the pocket, that Brodie Croyle is physically fragile and that Damon Huard is mentally fragile.

Notice how Tyler Thigpen played behind the SAME LINE as Croyle and Huard, yet managed to stay healthy?

My God, people will make up any excuse possible.

This team goes NOWHERE without a franchise QB.

It's time to bring in Hamas with his piss-elm tree branch to administer some punishment.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 11:13 AM
That is a joke right?

nope. If you don't take a QB in the first round, then who are you going to get???? I'm not sold on Graham Harrell or any of those QBs.

Fitzpatrick could be a cheap QB that you could pickup to compete with Thigpen. Thigpen and Fitzpatrick could also could run the same scheme. They are similar in a few ways. They are about the same size. They are both mobile and both can throw on the run.

Signing Fitzpatrick is giving Thigpen a chance to compete for the job for another year.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 11:39 AM
Or, it could just be that Trent Green took a vicious hit OUTSIDE the pocket, that Brodie Croyle is physically fragile and that Damon Huard is mentally fragile.

Notice how Tyler Thigpen played behind the SAME LINE as Croyle and Huard, yet managed to stay healthy?

My God, people will make up any excuse possible.

This team goes NOWHERE without a franchise QB.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Thigpen is pretty solid built guy that can run for his life. The offense also changed, which helped with the amount of hits on the QB.

I don't Sanchez will run for his life and I don't think we will be running the spread with him.

This team goes NOWHERE without a defense.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 11:42 AM
I think it has more to do with the fact that Thigpen is pretty solid built guy that can run for his life. The offense also changed, which helped with the amount of hits on the QB.

I don't Sanchez will run for his life and I don't think we will be running the spread with him.

This team goes NOWHERE without a defense.

Thigpen is smaller than both Sanchez and Stafford.

That defense really stepped up last night - leaving the game in the hands of a franchise QB and a piss-poor OL.

Look who got the job done.

The franchise QB.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 11:42 AM
I think it has more to do with the fact that Thigpen is pretty solid built guy that can run for his life. The offense also changed, which helped with the amount of hits on the QB.

I don't Sanchez will run for his life and I don't think we will be running the spread with him.

This team goes NOWHERE without a defense.

And that, my friend, is the objective.

Coogs
02-02-2009, 11:43 AM
This team goes NOWHERE without a defense.

I don't think anyone here would argue that point. But you can only build so much at a time. If we can add the franchise type QB at the top of the draft this year, then do it. Then work on fixing the other parts. Might take a couple of years to get all the parts in place, and there are some real defensive studs at the top of the draft next season.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 11:48 AM
This team goes NOWHERE without a Grey Hound Luxury Bus!

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 11:48 AM
This team goes NOWHERE without a Grey Hound Luxury Bus!

LMAO

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:09 PM
Thigpen is smaller than both Sanchez and Stafford.

That defense really stepped up last night - leaving the game in the hands of a franchise QB and a piss-poor OL.

Look who got the job done.

The franchise QB.

So, you think Sanchez will run around like Big Ben and create time to throw???

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 12:10 PM
So, you think Sanchez will run around like Big Ben and create time to throw???

You obviously didn't see a single USC game this year.

ChiefsCountry
02-02-2009, 12:11 PM
So, you think Sanchez will run around like Big Ben and create time to throw???

You have never seen Sanchez play have you?

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:19 PM
I don't think anyone here would argue that point. But you can only build so much at a time. If we can add the franchise type QB at the top of the draft this year, then do it. Then work on fixing the other parts. Might take a couple of years to get all the parts in place, and there are some real defensive studs at the top of the draft next season.

Why draft a QB that doesn't fit? Sanchez will not be successful with the current line. You would be better off drafting Pat White. He would have more success. All you are going to do is ruin him. He'll probably get injured. Or just be lousy.

Look at Atlanta and Baltimore. Both teams ran the ball out of pro style offenses, pretty bruising running teams. Have you seen us run the ball?

So, you are going to take a rookie QB and say hey throw the ball 40 times a game and win with a bad o-line. Oh.. yeah.. I know you don't have the ability to scramble. Just get rid of it quicker.

Sanchez has no chance. If I were him and we picked him, I would hold out long enough to not have to play this year.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 12:25 PM
Why draft a QB that doesn't fit? Sanchez will not be successful with the current line. You would be better off drafting Pat White. He would have more success. All you are going to do is ruin him. He'll probably get injured. Or just be lousy.

Look at Atlanta and Baltimore. Both teams ran the ball out of pro style offenses, pretty bruising running teams. Have you seen us run the ball?

So, you are going to take a rookie QB and say hey throw the ball 40 times a game and win with a bad o-line. Oh.. yeah.. I know you don't have the ability to scramble. Just get rid of it quicker.

Sanchez has no chance. If I were him and we picked him, I would hold out long enough to not have to play this year.

You're an idiot. Are you kidding me? It's not like we're running the spread again next year. It's not like the FO is going to completely ignore the offensive line again. FFS....some people just don't get it.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:29 PM
You obviously didn't see a single USC game this year.

Yes, I have seen him play. And he played well when I watched him play. Really good game against Penn State. BUT USC is an athletic team with a pretty good o line. And I don't remember his jersey ever being too dirty.

oh, that's right. That's because he was so fast that no one ever touched him. Him playing in the pac 10 had nothing to do with it either. Lots of defensive power houses in that conference. He will definitely be successful behind the Chiefs porous offensive line. No problem.

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 12:30 PM
Frustrating, isn't it?

Seems like everyone who watches football agrees that QB is the most important position, but Chiefs fans argue over whether we should draft a QB in the first round.

I still blame Carl for making some of our fan base 1st-Round-QB-Shy...

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 12:31 PM
So, you think Sanchez will run around like Big Ben and create time to throw???

Why draft a QB that doesn't fit? Sanchez will not be successful with the current line. You would be better off drafting Pat White. He would have more success. All you are going to do is ruin him. He'll probably get injured. Or just be lousy.

Look at Atlanta and Baltimore. Both teams ran the ball out of pro style offenses, pretty bruising running teams. Have you seen us run the ball?

So, you are going to take a rookie QB and say hey throw the ball 40 times a game and win with a bad o-line. Oh.. yeah.. I know you don't have the ability to scramble. Just get rid of it quicker.

Sanchez has no chance. If I were him and we picked him, I would hold out long enough to not have to play this year.

:banghead::cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead:

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 12:31 PM
Sanchez will not be successful with the current line. You would be better off drafting Pat White. He would have more success.

:eek:

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 12:31 PM
Yes, I have seen him play. And he played well when I watched him play. Really good game against Penn State. BUT USC is an athletic team with a pretty good o line. And I don't remember his jersey ever being too dirty.

oh, that's right. That's because he was so fast that no one ever touched him. Him playing in the pac 10 had nothing to do with it either. Lots of defensive power houses in that conference. He will definitely be successful behind the Chiefs porous offensive line. No problem.

You realize we also have FA and more than 1 draft pick, right?

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:34 PM
You're an idiot. Are you kidding me? It's not like we're running the spread again next year. It's not like the FO is going to completely ignore the offensive line again. FFS....some people just don't get it.

How many starters on the o line are you wanting to replace? 2 or 3??? where do you plan on finding them???

Coogs
02-02-2009, 12:34 PM
Why draft a QB that doesn't fit? Sanchez will not be successful with the current line. You would be better off drafting Pat White. He would have more success. All you are going to do is ruin him. He'll probably get injured. Or just be lousy.

Look at Atlanta and Baltimore. Both teams ran the ball out of pro style offenses, pretty bruising running teams. Have you seen us run the ball?

So, you are going to take a rookie QB and say hey throw the ball 40 times a game and win with a bad o-line. Oh.. yeah.. I know you don't have the ability to scramble. Just get rid of it quicker.

Sanchez has no chance. If I were him and we picked him, I would hold out long enough to not have to play this year.

Who said it has to be Sanchez? It could be Stafford. And who says they have to be the starter this season? If they have to spend a year on the bench, it does not mean they would be a bust of a pick.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 12:35 PM
How many starters on the o line are you wanting to replace? 2 or 3??? where do you plan on finding them???

Two letters:

F......A.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 12:36 PM
How many starters on the o line are you wanting to replace? 2 or 3??? where do you plan on finding them???

Look man.....it would honestly take 2 people to fix this line for right now. You grab a Center and immediately make him a starter. You kick Niswanger over to RG (where he played better then he did at center) and then you grab a RT in the 4th-5th rounds.

FFS....what do you want us to do? Grab an OT with our 1st round pick and then draft Sam Bradford next year?

Crush
02-02-2009, 12:38 PM
Two letters:

F......A.


Save your breath, DCS, because this guy is in his own little world.

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 12:38 PM
Look man.....it would honestly take 2 people to fix this line for right now. You grab a Center and immediately make him a starter. You kick Niswanger over to RG (where he played better then he did at center) and then you grab a RT in the 4th-5th rounds.

FFS....what do you want us to do? Grab an OT with our 1st round pick and then draft Sam Bradford next year?

C in round 3 .
RT in the next.

Assuming your scouting department is worth a shit, problem solved.

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 12:38 PM
Look man.....it would honestly take 2 people to fix this line for right now. You grab a Center and immediately make him a starter. You kick Niswanger over to RG (where he played better then he did at center) and then you grab a RT in the 4th-5th rounds.


I concur.

Coogs
02-02-2009, 12:39 PM
FFS....what do you want us to do? Grab an OT with our 1st round pick and then draft Sam Bradford next year?

Probably, considering all of the defensive players that should be at the top of the draft board next April that could help this team.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 12:40 PM
Look man.....it would honestly take 2 people to fix this line for right now. You grab a Center and immediately make him a starter. You kick Niswanger over to RG (where he played better then he did at center) and then you grab a RT in the 4th-5th rounds.

FFS....what do you want us to do? Grab an OT with our 1st round pick and then draft Sam Bradford next year?

Beating with the branch of a piss-elm tree for you, for even suggesting such a travesty!%(/:D:D:D

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 12:40 PM
C in round 3 .
RT in the next.

Assuming your scouting department is worth a shit, problem solved.

This would work just as well. Some people fucking think that we need our o-line to consist of 1st day picks for it to be good. :cuss: