PDA

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


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 11:42 AM
C in round 3 .
RT in the next.

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

I got a better idea:

How's about we completely eradicate this "change position/musical chairs" bullshit, and start operating like a professional franchise.

Yes, me think's that's the way.

Crush
02-02-2009, 11:43 AM
I'm really starting to think that this guy is a troll.

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 11:45 AM
I got a better idea:

How's about we completely eradicate this "change position/musical chairs" bullshit, and start operating like a professional franchise.

Yes, me think's that's the way.

I'm fine with the Chiefs acting like a well-run NFL franchise.

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 11:45 AM
Look, I agree that you build a team from the inside out. But that doesn't mean you only improve one area of the team per year. If that was the case, it would take 7 or 8 years to build a team.

When you have a chance to grab a franchise player at one of the most important positions (QB, LT, DE), you do it. You can build other positions in the same offseason.

Look what Atlanta did last year. They improved the QB position, as well as both offensive and defensive lines.

It's not a mutually exclusive deal.

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 11:46 AM
I'm really starting to think that this guy is a troll.

At the very least, we must be missing the sarcasm and/or humor.

Did he really just suggest Pat White? I thought I was reading one of my own previous posts, for a second...

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 11:50 AM
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.

Most of you guys are assuming that we can pick up some offensive lineman in free agency or the draft and plug them in and protect our QB.

I'm assuming the opposite. I'm assuming that our o-line will be just as bad or worse. I have no reason to believe that KC is going to spend lots of cash and overpay (Sakintosh) a offensive line free agent to plug a hole. Offensive lines are typically built and developed. Usually the offensive lineman are on the team as a late round pick and develop for a few years. I just don't see it on our team. If we draft someone, they will most likely have a learning curve. And free agents are seldom as good as advertised.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 11:51 AM
Save your breath, DCS, because this guy is in his own little world.

I wish I could find that cartoon where Yosimite Sam is trying to off Bugs Bunny by getting him to play a song on a piano loaded with dynamite.
Bugs plays the first part over and over because he can't seem to figure out the last note, which incidentally happens to be the key that is wired to the dynamite.

After about half a dozen starts and stops, Yosimite Sam can't take Bug's repeated fuck up one more time. He get's pissed and rushes over to the piano, pushing Bugs out of the way, and begins playing the piece. He hits the right note at the end, and the piano explodes in his face.

I feel like Yosimite Sam every time I hear the "don't draft a QB" trip.

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 11:52 AM
Most of you guys are assuming that we can pick up some offensive lineman in free agency or the draft and plug them in and protect our QB.

I'm assuming the opposite. I'm assuming that our o-line will be just as bad or worse. I have no reason to believe that KC is going to spend lots of cash and overpay (Sakintosh) a offensive line free agent to plug a hole. Offensive lines are typically built and developed. Usually the offensive lineman are on the team as a late round pick and develop for a few years. I just don't see it on our team. If we draft someone, they will most likely have a learning curve. And free agents are seldom as good as advertised.

You're a "glass half empty" kinda guy, aren't you?

kysirsoze
02-02-2009, 11:52 AM
I'm really starting to think that this guy is a troll.

I thought that when this thread first went up. I can't believe it's gone over 500 posts. If he is a troll he is to be congratulated.:ROFL:bravo:

bevis369
02-02-2009, 11:55 AM
:Poke:%(/:hump:

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 11:56 AM
At the very least, we must be missing the sarcasm and/or humor.

Did he really just suggest Pat White? I thought I was reading one of my own previous posts, for a second...

I was trying to make a point with Pat White. There is a reason the chiefs are running the spread. The line can't protect the passer. I don't see any hope of any improvement.

DaKCMan AP
02-02-2009, 11:58 AM
I was trying to make a point with Pat White. There is a reason the chiefs are running the spread. The line can't protect the passer. I don't see any hope of any improvement.

Free agency nor the draft has started and you're already conceding improvement?

Coogs
02-02-2009, 11:59 AM
There is a reason the chiefs are running the spread.

And that reason was Thigpen, not the line.

beach tribe
02-02-2009, 11:59 AM
I was trying to make a point with Pat White. There is a reason the chiefs are running the spread. The line can't protect the passer. I don't see any hope of any improvement.

I do. I fully expect Pioli to bring in O-line help. Through FA, and the draft.

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 11:59 AM
I was trying to make a point with Pat White. There is a reason the chiefs are running the spread. The line can't protect the passer. I don't see any hope of any improvement.

You're right, the way the NFL is setup no team can improve from 1 year to the next.

That's why the next 10 Super Bowls will be between the Steelers and the Cardinals.

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 12:00 PM
I was trying to make a point with Pat White. There is a reason the chiefs are running the spread. The line can't protect the passer. I don't see any hope of any improvement.

I understood your point; it was the player you used to try to make it that made my jaw drop.

You do realize that Sanchez moves pretty well, right?

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 12:02 PM
Free agency nor the draft has started and you're already conceding improvement?

http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB100475.jpg?size=572&uid={84DFEB6D-A23A-4210-B129-ECED72EFA049}

http://wine.appellationamerica.com/images/appellations/features/wve-white-flag-260.jpg

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:03 PM
I do. I fully expect Pioli to bring in O-line help. Through FA, and the draft.

There's really only two guys in free agency that would upgrade the line (Evans and Brown) and it's likely that neither will leave their respective teams.

There are plenty of offensive lineman in the 2009 draft that would immediately upgrade the line and be starter for years to come. Wood, Unger, Mack, Urbick, etc.

I'd be shocked if the Chiefs don't select at least two, if not three offensive lineman who start immediately.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 12:08 PM
http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB100475.jpg?size=572&uid=%7B84DFEB6D-A23A-4210-B129-ECED72EFA049%7D

http://wine.appellationamerica.com/images/appellations/features/wve-white-flag-260.jpg


ROFLROFLROFLROFL

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:08 PM
You're a "glass half empty" kinda guy, aren't you?

nope. I'm a defensive kind of guy. I like defense and ours sucks and I think trading our #3 for a few picks will finally give us an opportunity to have a good young defense.

Several people have already said to put a 4th and 5th round pick at right tackle and guard. We have picked several and they haven't worked out yet. We drafted a RT late in the draft last year in Barry Richardson. He didn't even dress. Becoming an offensive tackle in this league is not easy. You can't just expect to just sign a 4th round pick and plug him in. He'll probably be worse than Sakintosh.

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 12:09 PM
Jordan Gross would be an upgrade, but I bet he gets franchised. And even if he doesn't, it just doesn't seem to be Pioli's style to make a big money deal for an aging tackle.

I bet you're on the money with addressing the lines (both of them) in the draft.

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 12:14 PM
nope. I'm a defensive kind of guy. I like defense and ours sucks and I think trading our #3 for a few picks will finally give us an opportunity to have a good young defense.

Sigh. We've been through this. I would be shocked if there are any trades in the top 5 this year. Shocked.


Several people have already said to put a 4th and 5th round pick at right tackle and guard. We have picked several and they haven't worked out yet. We drafted a RT late in the draft last year in Barry Richardson. He didn't even dress. Becoming an offensive tackle in this league is not easy. You can't just expect to just sign a 4th round pick and plug him in. He'll probably be worse than Sakintosh.

Depends on the scouting department. And the coaches. We're changing some and/or all of it, so I expect different results.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-02-2009, 12:14 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 listen to me you n00b sonofabitch, and you listen good:

We are going to suck next year anyway. Throw away your pipe dreams of contending for a playoff spot, because it ain't going to happen. Fuck the idea of getting a game manager just to give us a 9 win ceiling.

The era of a true fan is over. Deal with it, or kill yourself, I really don't care which.

The fact of the matter is that QB is the most important position on the field, and the hardest to find. We are lucky enough to be in a situation where there are two franchise QBs from pro-style offenses available, and one will almost certainly be there when we pick.

Next year, what options are we going to have? A bunch of spread monkeys like Bradford, McCoy, or Tebow? Give me a fucking break. Expecting those guys to succeed is like saying that the college basketball team in Iowa that scores 150 points a game because they run down and chuck up nothing but threes is loaded with NBA prospects because they average 30+ ppg.

The NFL isn't fantasy football, and neither is college. You aren't going to be able to take advantage of a two-star, fourth string cornerback from fucking Jackson, Missouri in the NFL when you spread it out.

Pro teams need pro style quarterbacks. Good offensive and defensive lines are integral, but they are in no way more important than a good quarterback.

I know it's "scary" to get a bust in the top 10 at QB, but it's not like we haven't had Ryan Sims with a high pick, or Trezelle Jenkins on the other line.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 12:16 PM
nope. I'm a defensive kind of guy. I like defense and ours sucks and I think trading our #3 for a few picks will finally give us an opportunity to have a good young defense.

Several people have already said to put a 4th and 5th round pick at right tackle and guard. We have picked several and they haven't worked out yet. We drafted a RT late in the draft last year in Barry Richardson. He didn't even dress. Becoming an offensive tackle in this league is not easy. You can't just expect to just sign a 4th round pick and plug him in. He'll probably be worse than Sakintosh.

WE'RE NOT TRADING DOWN.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 12:19 PM
You listen to me you n00b sonofabitch, and you listen good:



ROFL

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:20 PM
There's really only two guys in free agency that would upgrade the line (Evans and Brown) and it's likely that neither will leave their respective teams.

There are plenty of offensive lineman in the 2009 draft that would immediately upgrade the line and be starter for years to come. Wood, Unger, Mack, Urbick, etc.

I'd be shocked if the Chiefs don't select at least two, if not three offensive lineman who start immediately.

That could be true, but if the Chiefs select Sanchez at #3 and use their 2nd and 3rd round on o-lineman then they will only have 4 picks left for defense for the 31st ranked defense. I doubt that will happen.

If the Chiefs select Sanchez with the #3 pick, it is more likely that they will select a defensive player in the 2nd and 3rd rounds and try to pick offensive lineman later in the draft. The point is if we select Sanchez we will probably have a o-line like last years or worse.

If the Chiefs go defense in round or better yet, trade down. They could very easily go defense in the first round and offensive lineman in 2nd round.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 12:20 PM
You listen to me you n00b sonofabitch, and you listen good:



ROFLROFLROFLROFL

The Piss-Elm Branch has arrived!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 12:22 PM
That could be true, but if the Chiefs select Sanchez at #3 and use their 2nd and 3rd round on o-lineman then they will only have 4 picks left for defense for the 31st ranked defense. I doubt that will happen.

If the Chiefs select Sanchez with the #3 pick, it is more likely that they will select a defensive player in the 2nd and 3rd rounds and try to pick offensive lineman later in the draft. The point is if we select Sanchez we will probably have a o-line like last years or worse.

If the Chiefs go defense in round or better yet, trade down. They could very easily go defense in the first round and offensive lineman in 2nd round.

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

Dude.....GD this is getting old. WE. ARE. NOT. WINNING. THE. SUPER. BOWL. NEXT. YEAR. It would be a miracle if we won more than 6 games next year.

There is no fix it all on the D side of the ball this year.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:23 PM
nope. I'm a defensive kind of guy. I like defense and ours sucks and I think trading our #3 for a few picks will finally give us an opportunity to have a good young defense.

Not gonna happen. A team trading into the #3 spot would have to nearly give away their entire 2009 draft and likely, picks next year. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any defensive players worthy of the #3 overall pick.

2010 will be the year for defense because the draft is seemingly loaded with defensive talent.

Several people have already said to put a 4th and 5th round pick at right tackle and guard. We have picked several and they haven't worked out yet. We drafted a RT late in the draft last year in Barry Richardson. He didn't even dress. Becoming an offensive tackle in this league is not easy. You can't just expect to just sign a 4th round pick and plug him in. He'll probably be worse than Sakintosh.

Wrong.

Mack, Wood and Unger will "dress" from day one and be an immediate upgrade at the center and guard positions. As far as tackles, Urbick would be an immediate starter. There will be guys in this draft that immediately upgrade the Chiefs offensive line and will be there for years to come. I've used this example before but Carl Nicks was a 5th round choice for the New Orleans Saints this past year and all he did was start 15 games for the most potent offense in the league.

Furthermore, Barry Richardson was 6th round draft choice. He has all the physical tools but according to his scouting report, he lacks motivation and a nasty streak. He's a perfect candidate for a 6th rounder because motivation can be taught, ability can't. Herb Taylor was a 6th rounder in 2007 and stepped and played brilliantly when Brendan Albert was injured.

So please, enough with the Chiefs "tried before" nonsense.

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 12:24 PM
You listen to me you n00b sonofabitch, and you listen good:

The era of a true fan is over. Deal with it, or kill yourself, I really don't care which.


ROFL

ChiefsCountry
02-02-2009, 12:24 PM
2009 is loaded at the OL in the draft, 2010 is loaded with defense. This stupid jackass needs to go jump off a cliff.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:25 PM
That could be true, but if the Chiefs select Sanchez at #3 and use their 2nd and 3rd round on o-lineman then they will only have 4 picks left for defense for the 31st ranked defense. I doubt that will happen.

If the Chiefs select Sanchez with the #3 pick, it is more likely that they will select a defensive player in the 2nd and 3rd rounds and try to pick offensive lineman later in the draft. The point is if we select Sanchez we will probably have a o-line like last years or worse.

If the Chiefs go defense in round or better yet, trade down. They could very easily go defense in the first round and offensive lineman in 2nd round.

DUDE, you DON'T DRAFT FOR NEED.

That's how the Chiefs arrived at this position. They have the most talent-depleted roster in the league because they kept drafting defensive tackles because they needed one and they traded away valuable picks for players that were effective (and two for a coach) for less than 5 years.

NEVER. DRAFT. FOR. NEED.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:26 PM
2009 is loaded at the OL in the draft, 2010 is loaded with defense. This stupid jackass needs to go jump off a cliff.

Unfortunately, we're going to be seeing all too many of these threads up until and just after draft day.

I'm doing my best not to lose it and be courteous.

Though I may slip from time to time.

:evil:

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 12:27 PM
Jesus tapdancing Christ.

Is the NFL planning on disbanding after the 2009 seaosn?

Otherwise, I can't fucking comprehend why people are more worried about 2009 than the FUTURE of this franchise.

Building ANYTHING - a skyscraper, a battleship or a football team - TAKES TIME.

Every move Pioli makes from this day forward is in the best interest of the FUTURE of this team, not specifically the 2009 season.

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2009, 12:28 PM
I think most people would agree that a QB is vitally important to a team. But at the same time, people are overstating the case. Two points: #1 - there is an overly simplistic view that a franchise QB solves all, but it doesn't, as we learned with Trent Green and teh Saints have learned with Drew Brees; #2 - there is a tendency to overrate QBs going into the draft, and the Chiefs should not overly reach for a QB they believe is not worth that value--I don't think the Browns regret for one second passing on Quinn to take Joe Thomas; #3 - If the franchise QB is this important decision, you shouldn't just settle for one in the draft unless you really feel warm and fuzzy about him. I would rather wait one year to take a true franchise QB than draft a QB who you are very unsure about but are going to force into the franchise role.

All of this, of course, depends on how Pioli rates Stafford and Sanchez. But you can't walk into the draft clearly knowing who you wwant to take before the combine even starts. My fear is that the Chiefs will draft Sanchez not because they believe he's the best player for them, but because they had their mind set on a QB come hell or high water and then developed tunnel vision in the draft room. The good news is, I don't believe Pioli will do that and I think like most analysts that aren't living in Kansas City, he has legitimate concerns about Sanchez that will determine whether he believes he's worth the #3 pick and #3 money. I'm leaning toward a QB, but I don't think it should be a slam dunk.

And let's be clear about one thing... Big Ben is a franchise QB and he had a solid game yesterday, but had he played with any other defense but the Steelers, the Steelers would have lost.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 12:29 PM
Unfortunately, we're going to be seeing all too many of these threads up until and just after draft day.

I'm doing my best not to lose it and be courteous.

Though I may slip from time to time.

:evil:

Fuck courteous.

These fucktards aren't being courteous by posting every thought that enters their simple-ass minds - so fuck 'em.

Save "courteous" for the guy that you may disagree with, but that actually thinks his posts through before hitting submit.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:31 PM
You listen to me you n00b sonofabitch, and you listen good:

We are going to suck next year anyway. Throw away your pipe dreams of contending for a playoff spot, because it ain't going to happen. **** the idea of getting a game manager just to give us a 9 win ceiling.

The era of a true fan is over. Deal with it, or kill yourself, I really don't care which.

The fact of the matter is that QB is the most important position on the field, and the hardest to find. We are lucky enough to be in a situation where there are two franchise QBs from pro-style offenses available, and one will almost certainly be there when we pick.

Next year, what options are we going to have? A bunch of spread monkeys like Bradford, McCoy, or Tebow? Give me a ****ing break. Expecting those guys to succeed is like saying that the college basketball team in Iowa that scores 150 points a game because they run down and chuck up nothing but threes is loaded with NBA prospects because they average 30+ ppg.

The NFL isn't fantasy football, and neither is college. You aren't going to be able to take advantage of a two-star, fourth string cornerback from ****ing Jackson, Missouri in the NFL when you spread it out.

Pro teams need pro style quarterbacks. Good offensive and defensive lines are integral, but they are in no way more important than a good quarterback.

I know it's "scary" to get a bust in the top 10 at QB, but it's not like we haven't had Ryan Sims with a high pick, or Trezelle Jenkins on the other line.

that even made me laugh. I agree with everything you said. But I disagree with how you do it.

I think you can ruin a QB and I also think you can develop one.

I don't think drafting Sanchez and asking him to make up for a terrible offense will help him develop. I think he is more likely to turn out like Alex Smith or David Carr. For a young QB to do well, there normally is a base offense of running the ball. We don't have that. Think of our offense before the spread, like when we played Carolina and got pushed all over the field. Not a good environment to become the next Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan.

Reerun_KC
02-02-2009, 12:32 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5451227#post5451227)
You listen to me you n00b sonofabitch, and you listen good:

The era of a true fan is over. Deal with it, or kill yourself, I really don't care which.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


The post of the year...

Hamas with the bitchslap of the true fans...

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 12:33 PM
Jesus tapdancing Christ.

Is the NFL planning on disbanding after the 2009 seaosn?

Otherwise, I can't fucking comprehend why people are more worried about 2009 than the FUTURE of this franchise.

Building ANYTHING - a skyscraper, a battleship or a football team - TAKES TIME.

Every move Pioli makes from this day forward is in the best interest of the FUTURE of this team, not specifically the 2009 season.

Yep, he laid it out pretty clear. You're always looking 2 to 3 years ahead.

Competence; what a concept!

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 12:33 PM
Let's get 'em.

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/simpsons-mob-torches.jpg

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-02-2009, 12:34 PM
that even made me laugh. I agree with everything you said. But I disagree with how you do it.

I think you can ruin a QB and I also think you can develop one.

I don't think drafting Sanchez and asking him to make up for a terrible offense will help him develop. I think he is more likely to turn out like Alex Smith or David Carr. For a young QB to do well, there normally is a base offense of running the ball. We don't have that. Think of our offense before the spread, like when we played Carolina and got pushed all over the field. Not a good environment to become the next Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan.

Who said that Sanchez or Stafford would even start from day one next year?

Hell, you can bring them in for the last half of '09 after Thigpen succeeds in piling on the FAIL trying to run a normal offense, and once they've become accustomed to the speed of the game.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:45 PM
DUDE, you DON'T DRAFT FOR NEED.

That's how the Chiefs arrived at this position. They have the most talent-depleted roster in the league because they kept drafting defensive tackles because they needed one and they traded away valuable picks for players that were effective (and two for a coach) for less than 5 years.

NEVER. DRAFT. FOR. NEED.

that's my point. I can't believe we had the same conclusion, but you didn't get my point. If the Chiefs draft Sanchez, they NEED o-line help. But it is not likely the Chiefs first three picks of the draft will be QB, OL, OL. It is more likely that the chiefs will draft defense with the next two picks just due to the odds.

THEREFORE, we can conclude the Chiefs line will most likely be bad next year. Maybe somebody like Barry Richardson develops or the chiefs draft a great RT in the 4th round, but the odds are we will have a bad line next year, which will in turn make Sanchez a bad QB.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 12:47 PM
that's my point. I can't believe we had the same conclusion, but you didn't get my point. If the Chiefs draft Sanchez, they NEED o-line help. But it is not likely the Chiefs first three picks of the draft will be QB, OL, OL. It is more likely that the chiefs will draft defense with the next two picks just due to the odds.

THEREFORE, we can conclude the Chiefs line will most likely be bad next year. Maybe somebody like Barry Richardson develops or the chiefs draft a great RT in the 4th round, but the odds are we will have a bad line next year, which will in turn make Sanchez a bad QB.

Really?

Like the bad Pittsburgh OL made Roethlisberger a bad QB?

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:52 PM
that's my point. I can't believe we had the same conclusion, but you didn't get my point. If the Chiefs draft Sanchez, they NEED o-line help. But it is not likely the Chiefs first three picks of the draft will be QB, OL, OL. It is more likely that the chiefs will draft defense with the next two picks just due to the odds.

THEREFORE, we can conclude the Chiefs line will most likely be bad next year. Maybe somebody like Barry Richardson develops or the chiefs draft a great RT in the 4th round, but the odds are we will have a bad line next year, which will in turn make Sanchez a bad QB.

Due to what "odds"? "We can conclude". Huh?

If an offensive lineman is the best pick at #34 overall, YOU TAKE HIM.

There are no "odds" involved.

Furthermore, since this draft is weak on the defensive side of the ball, the "odds" are that an offensive player is more likely to be the choice when the Chiefs choose in rounds 2, 3, & 4.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:53 PM
Really?

Like the bad Pittsburgh OL made Roethlisberger a bad QB?

oh.. that's right. the steelers running game sucked when Ben was a rookie. Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker were terrible.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 12:56 PM
Due to what "odds"? "We can conclude". Huh?

If an offensive lineman is the best pick at #34 overall, YOU TAKE HIM.

There are no "odds" involved.

Furthermore, since this draft is weak on the defensive side of the ball, the "odds" are that an offensive player is more likely to be the choice when the Chiefs choose in rounds 2, 3, & 4.

how about this... when the chiefs pick in the first three rounds, it is unlikely that the best player available will be an offensive lineman 2 out of the 3 rounds.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:56 PM
oh.. that's right. the steelers running game sucked when Ben was a rookie. Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker were terrible.

Bettis had 368 yards in 2005. Parker had 1,200.

I certainly wouldn't be bragging about those numbers.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 12:56 PM
oh.. that's right. the steelers running game sucked when Ben was a rookie. Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker were terrible.

So, which is it?

Lack of a running game, or a bad OL - which are you claiming will "ruin" a young QB?

If you know jack-shit about football, you'd know that your examples, David Carr and Alex Smith weren't "ruined" by bad OL play.

They were ruined by a lack of fucking talent.

You can't draft talentless, insecure headcases #1 overall and expect them to be successful in ANY system.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 12:57 PM
how about this... when the chiefs pick in the first three rounds, it is unlikely that the best player available will be an offensive lineman 2 out of the 3 rounds.

Again, why?

It's been stated here and on nearly every draft site that the 2009 NFL Draft is not a good year for defensive players.

So why in the hell do you think that defensive players at the end of the first day and on the second day will be valued higher than their offensive counterparts?

You supposition makes no sense.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 01:07 PM
The Dense is strong in this one...

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 01:07 PM
I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited.

You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play.

If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.

DeezNutz
02-02-2009, 01:08 PM
:popcorn:

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 01:08 PM
I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited.

You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play.

If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 01:08 PM
So, which is it?

Lack of a running game, or a bad OL - which are you claiming will "ruin" a young QB?

If you know jack-shit about football, you'd know that your examples, David Carr and Alex Smith weren't "ruined" by bad OL play.

They were ruined by a lack of ****ing talent.

You can't draft talentless, insecure headcases #1 overall and expect them to be successful in ANY system.

David Carr didn't have bad o-line play....... hmmm. how many times was he sacked in his first few years in the league???

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 01:09 PM
I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited.

You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play.

If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.

James Harrison was cut three times by the Steelers, is 30 years old and was an undrafted free agent in 2002.

Again, your supposition makes absolutely no sense.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 01:09 PM
And just so you know.......James Harrison was an UDFA.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 01:09 PM
So are you dumb enough to think you can't fix the Oline in this years draft, free agency, next years draft, and free agency, OR are you dumb enough to start Stafford/Sanchez day one?

Coogs
02-02-2009, 01:10 PM
I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

I think pretty much everyone here does get just as excited about having a player like that. And we will get that player in the 2010 draft if all goes well.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 01:10 PM
You don't draft LB's high...

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 01:10 PM
David Carr didn't have bad o-line play....... hmmm. how many times was he sacked in his first few years in the league???

He was sacked because he held onto the ball far too long.

You don't watch much NFL football, do you?

DaKCMan AP
02-02-2009, 01:10 PM
I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited.

You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play.

If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.

Your and idiot.

STFU

RustShack
02-02-2009, 01:11 PM
He was sacked because he held onto the ball far too long.

You don't watch much NFL football, do you?

Hes one of those guys where stats tell him the whole story. LMAO

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 01:13 PM
I bet you spend most of your time over at the WPI board.....don't you?

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 01:21 PM
I have no choice; this long-distance dedication goes out to you, KC Bubb:


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N_Sgi5WzoUI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N_Sgi5WzoUI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 01:21 PM
Again, why?

It's been stated here and on nearly every draft site that the 2009 NFL Draft is not a good year for defensive players.

So why in the hell do you think that defensive players at the end of the first day and on the second day will be valued higher than their offensive counterparts?

You supposition makes no sense.

so, you are stating that it is likely that the chiefs take an OL in the 2nd and 3rd round if they take sanchez at #3???

Coogs
02-02-2009, 01:24 PM
so, you are stating that it is likely that the chiefs take an OL in the 2nd and 3rd round if they take sanchez at #3???

I think he is suggesting we take the best player available at those spots. And based off of most top 100's right now, that very well could play out to be O-linemen.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 01:28 PM
He was sacked because he held onto the ball far too long.

You don't watch much NFL football, do you?

And because he struggled reading defenses and panicked under pressure.

Other than that, I mean, sure. Blame the OL.

This guy is beyond full retard, Dane.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 01:28 PM
ok, let's simplify this.....

the Chiefs had a poor running game last year and they also had poor protection. IF these things stay the same as last year, will Sanchez be a good QB for the Chiefs?????

Chiefnj2
02-02-2009, 01:30 PM
ok, let's simplify this.....

the Chiefs had a poor running game last year and they also had poor protection. IF these things stay the same as last year, will Sanchez be a good QB for the Chiefs?????

nobody will be a good QB with those things.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 01:30 PM
ok, let's simplify this.....

the Chiefs had a poor running game last year and they also had poor protection. IF these things stay the same as last year, will Sanchez be a good QB for the Chiefs?????

Why would if matter how the running game is next year? Sanchez will be on the bench.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-02-2009, 01:35 PM
I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited.

You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play.

If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.

If I gave you a choice between Lawrence Taylor and John Elway, who are you taking?

Does Taylor lead those 80's Broncos teams to 3 Super Bowls?

How many Super Bowls did Bruce Smiff win?

Was it Ronnie Lott, or Joe Montana who drove the 49ers 90 yards with 3 minutes left in SB XXIII?

How many Super Bowls did Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith go to as Chiefs?

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 01:49 PM
If I gave you a choice between Lawrence Taylor and John Elway, who are you taking?

Does Taylor lead those 80's Broncos teams to 3 Super Bowls?

How many Super Bowls did Bruce Smiff win?

Was it Ronnie Lott, or Joe Montana who drove the 49ers 90 yards with 3 minutes left in SB XXIII?

How many Super Bowls did Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith go to as Chiefs?

So, you like offense better. Is that your point? The Chiefs need to try and build the best TEAM. I understand that having a great QB is critical, but you don't win without a good defense.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 01:56 PM
So, you like offense better. Is that your point? The Chiefs need to try and build the best TEAM. I understand that having a great QB is critical, but you don't win without a good defense.

Giminy fuckin criket; this HAS to be a joke, right?

ChiefsCountry
02-02-2009, 01:59 PM
So, you like offense better. Is that your point? The Chiefs need to try and build the best TEAM. I understand that having a great QB is critical, but you don't win without a good defense.

Lets put this in simple terms - this team isnt going to be build in one year. This year we are in position to get a franchise QB and OL, next year is loaded with defense. This team is being built towards a 2011 and beyond run for the Super Bowl not 2009.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 02:02 PM
So are you dumb enough to think you can't fix the Oline in this years draft, free agency, next years draft, and free agency, OR are you dumb enough to start Stafford/Sanchez day one?

so, you think Thigpen will beat out Sanchez on day one?

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 02:05 PM
so, you think Thigpen will beat out Sanchez on day one?

Does Sesame Street make a "learn football" DVD? Someone? Anyone? Please?

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 02:08 PM
Lets put this in simple terms - this team isnt going to be build in one year. This year we are in position to get a franchise QB and OL, next year is loaded with defense. This team is being built towards a 2011 and beyond run for the Super Bowl not 2009.

I agree. But I don't see how drafting Sanchez gets us there.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 02:10 PM
I agree. But I don't see how drafting Sanchez gets us there.

You can't see that? But you want us to grab Fitzpatrick. You're beyond help.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 02:10 PM
Does Sesame Street make a "learn football" DVD? Someone? Anyone? Please?

so, they give him 70 million to ride the pine in year one???? I doubt it. If they pay him, he's playing.

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 02:11 PM
You can't see that? But you want us to grab Fitzpatrick. You're beyond help.

Who is that in your avatar?

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 02:11 PM
Who is that in your avatar?

Robert Gallery.

ChiefsCountry
02-02-2009, 02:12 PM
I agree. But I don't see how drafting Sanchez gets us there.

:rolleyes:

Darth CarlSatan
02-02-2009, 02:12 PM
Robert Gallery.

Thanks.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 02:12 PM
so, you think Thigpen will beat out Sanchez on day one?

Jesus Christ how fucking stupid are you? Do you really think the Bengals thought Kitna was better than Palmer? Do you think the Steelers thought Maddox was better than Rothlisberger? Do you think the Cardnals really thought McCown was better than Leihnart?

RustShack
02-02-2009, 02:13 PM
so, they give him 70 million to ride the pine in year one???? I doubt it. If they pay him, he's playing.

You don't pay attention to how anything in the NFL works do you?

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 02:14 PM
So, you like offense better. Is that your point? The Chiefs need to try and build the best TEAM. I understand that having a great QB is critical, but you don't win without a good defense.

Eric Downing
Ryan Sims
Eddie Freeman
Junior Siavii

What do they have in common? They were all REACHES. Vermeil wanted Tyler Brayton over Larry Johnson!

Don't you get it? You CAN NOT build a team by REACHING for players. THAT'S WHY the Chiefs are in their current predicament.

There is not ONE defensive player worthy of the #3 overall pick. NOT ONE. But, if Sanchez or Stafford is there at the #3 overall pick, they ARE worthy of that spot.

Get it?

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 02:15 PM
You don't pay attention to how anything in the NFL works do you?

I'm assuming he doesn't because he thinks Ryan Fitzpatrick is good.

If we bring in Fitzpatrick to compete with Thigpen for the starting job.....we'll continue to be the laughing stock of the NFL.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 02:15 PM
I agree. But I don't see how drafting Sanchez gets us there.

Then you don't understand the NFL.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 02:25 PM
You can't see that? But you want us to grab Fitzpatrick. You're beyond help.

How can you not see that Sanchez is doomed if we select him? Our offensive line is most likely not getting much better.

The Chiefs need to build the defense and the offensive line this year in the draft.

Deberg_1990
02-02-2009, 02:28 PM
How can you not see that Sanchez is doomed if we select him? Our offensive line is most likely not getting much better.

The Chiefs need to build the defense and the offensive line this year in the draft.


So do you think this is a 1 year rebuild or else?? Relax dude. Be patient.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 02:28 PM
How can you not see that Sanchez is doomed if we select him? Our offensive line is most likely not getting much better.

The Chiefs need to build the defense and the offensive line this year in the draft.

This has already been explained to you 3 or 4 times in this thread so far. You're either so hard headed that you can't pick up on it....or you're too dumb to realize it's there. :thumb:

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 02:29 PM
Eric Downing
Ryan Sims
Eddie Freeman
Junior Siavii

What do they have in common? They were all REACHES. Vermeil wanted Tyler Brayton over Larry Johnson!

Don't you get it? You CAN NOT build a team by REACHING for players. THAT'S WHY the Chiefs are in their current predicament.

There is not ONE defensive player worthy of the #3 overall pick. NOT ONE. But, if Sanchez or Stafford is there at the #3 overall pick, they ARE worthy of that spot.

Get it?

I agree with you assessment of the reaches, but disagree with your opinion of Sanchez. If we don't take Sanchez, who is? Please give me a few names. Reaching for a player is really why I want to trade down. I would love to trade down and get Everette Brown or Ray Malauaga. I also wouldn't mind trading up with our 2nd round pick to late first and get Michael Johnson if we don't select Everette Brown.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 02:34 PM
This has already been explained to you 3 or 4 times in this thread so far. You're either so hard headed that you can't pick up on it....or you're too dumb to realize it's there. :thumb:

What was that??? please tell me.... picking for NEED and selecting o-lineman in the 2nd and 3rd rounds or getting another Sacintosh in free agency. great plan. also, if you do that, our defense won't be addressed very much in the draft and will be terrible.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 02:39 PM
So do you think this is a 1 year rebuild or else?? Relax dude. Be patient.

that really is kinda my point. build a team where the QB doesn't have to carry the team. this team is not very good right now.

why not build a better team that the QB will have a better chance to develop and be successful in?

build an o-line where you can run the ball where defense has to defend the run. make it easier on the young QB you draft.

build a defense where the QB isn't playing from behind and you don't ask him to win the game. confidence is huge for a young QB. don't ask Sanchez to come out and overcome a bad defense and a bad line.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 02:40 PM
I agree with you assessment of the reaches, but disagree with your opinion of Sanchez. If we don't take Sanchez, who is? Please give me a few names. Reaching for a player is really why I want to trade down. I would love to trade down and get Everette Brown or Ray Malauaga. I also wouldn't mind trading up with our 2nd round pick to late first and get Michael Johnson if we don't select Everette Brown.

Either you can't read, you won't read or you don't read other posts thoroughly.

A team would need to give up nearly its entire draft in order to move to the #3 spot and probably picks next year. It's NOT going to happen.

There's a word for someone who would rather draft a MLB like Rey over Sanchez or Stafford.

And it's not brilliant.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 02:41 PM
that really is kinda my point. build a team where the QB doesn't have to carry the team. this team is not very good right now.

why not build a better team that the QB will have a better chance to develop and be successful in?

build an o-line where you can run the ball where defense has to defend the run. make it easier on the young QB you draft.

build a defense where the QB isn't playing from behind and you don't ask him to win the game. confidence is huge for a young QB. don't ask Sanchez to come out and overcome a bad defense and a bad line.

If you "build" a "better" team, at what point will you have an opportunity to draft a FRANCHISE QB THAN AT THE #3 OVERALL SPOT?

Please, tell us.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 02:44 PM
Dude listen.....if there was a game changing DE available at the #3 spot this year....then I would understand your thoughts.....BUT THERE ISN'T. And don't start in with the "trade down" argument. The chances of that happening are slim to none. We have a chance to grab a young QB to build this team around with the #3 pick. If we don't....we're fucking stupid.

Deberg_1990
02-02-2009, 02:49 PM
build a team where the QB doesn't have to carry the team.

So you want the 90's Chiefs again then. Terrific...

ChiefRon
02-02-2009, 02:49 PM
Cue the "then take an OT" response...

DrRyan
02-02-2009, 03:06 PM
I am coming around to us taking a QB in the first round. I am not a big fan of either of the two options at #3 though. You are right though, there is not really a defensive player worthy(game changer) of being taken at #3. But, there are plenty of "holes" in both Stafford and Sanchez to cause concern. Stafford has not shown me the ability to make good reads. I have seen him play several times this year in which he will lock on to his primary read, leading to INTs he seems to think his arm strength can avoid. Sanchez is still very green. I see no way that spending #3 money on a kid that has started one season in college is a good move. I seriously doubt he is ready to start in the NFL week one next season, but he will likely have to if he is taken there. Not many teams drop that kind of cash on a player to hold a clip board. IMO in this years draft which is weak at the top, the Chiefs are in a lose-lose situation.

Show me I am wrong Scott and work you magic!

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 03:08 PM
I am coming around to us taking a QB in the first round. I am not a big fan of either of the two options at #3 though. You are right though, there is not really a defensive player worthy(game changer) of being taken at #3. But, there are plenty of "holes" in both Stafford and Sanchez to cause concern. Stafford has not shown me the ability to make good reads. I have seen him play several times this year in which he will lock on to his primary read, leading to INTs he seems to think his arm strength can avoid. Sanchez is still very green. I see no way that spending #3 money on a kid that has started one season in college is a good move. I seriously doubt he is ready to start in the NFL week one next season, but he will likely have to if he is taken there. Not many teams drop that kind of cash on a player to hold a clip board. IMO in this years draft which is weak at the top, the Chiefs are in a lose-lose situation.

Show me I am wrong Scott and work you magic!

QBs get taken that high and sit on the bench for a year all the time.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 03:11 PM
QBs get taken that high and sit on the bench for a year all the time.

McNabb and Palmer immediately come to mind.

Rausch
02-02-2009, 03:13 PM
McNabb and Palmer immediately come to mind.

Or longer.

Pennington, McNair, you could even argue Steve Young.

I don't think there is a right or wrong way you can stamp on bringing up a QB - it all depends on that specific QB...

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 04:07 PM
Would you swap 1st round picks with New England for Matt Cassell?

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 04:10 PM
Would you swap 1st round picks with New England for Matt Cassell?

Hell no.

Why would you give up what amounts to the 8th overall pick in value, when you can use your pick to get a guy that is 6-7 years younger, and has more potential?

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 04:11 PM
Would you swap 1st round picks with New England for Matt Cassell?

No. Matt Cassell is not worth a 1st round pick....which is what that swap is worth.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 04:19 PM
another question:

would you ever trade with oakland? I know a lot of people say you don't trade with someone in the afc west.

ChiefsCountry
02-02-2009, 04:24 PM
another question:

would you ever trade with oakland? I know a lot of people say you don't trade with someone in the afc west.

No unless you rape them by getting a hell of a deal.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 04:31 PM
No unless you rape them by getting a hell of a deal.

This.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 04:36 PM
No. Matt Cassell is not worth a 1st round pick....which is what that swap is worth.


ok. So, if the Patriots offered Cassell and their 3rd round pick to swap firsts with the Chiefs. Would you take that?

ChiefsCountry
02-02-2009, 04:37 PM
ok. So, if the Patriots offered Cassell and their 3rd round pick to swap firsts with the Chiefs. Would you take that?

Hell no.

kstater
02-02-2009, 04:38 PM
ok. So, if the Patriots offered Cassell and their 3rd round pick to swap firsts with the Chiefs. Would you take that?

Anything involving giving up the #3 pick is not worth it.

OnTheWarpath58
02-02-2009, 04:38 PM
ok. So, if the Patriots offered Cassell and their 3rd round pick to swap firsts with the Chiefs. Would you take that?

http://i39.tinypic.com/ifoh28.jpg

Crush
02-02-2009, 04:41 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/ifoh28.jpg


LMAO

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 04:42 PM
Hell no.

glad to see we have strong opinions. what about Cassell and a 2nd and 5th to swap first round picks?

remember the patriots are picking 23. so, you are talking about dropping 20 spots for three players (Cassell, & pick #55 & #151)

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 04:44 PM
I don't want Cassell on this team.

kstater
02-02-2009, 04:46 PM
glad to see we have strong opinions. what about Cassell and a 2nd and 5th to swap first round picks?

remember the patriots are picking 23. so, you are talking about dropping 20 spots for three players (Cassell, & pick #55 & #151)

What is it with your facsination of dumping the #3 pick?

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 04:50 PM
What is it with your facsination of dumping the #3 pick?

He's scared and wants to trade down.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 04:52 PM
Fear man, I remember awhile back I had a guy tell me we didn't want high picks cause they cost to much.

Matt Cassell is a product of working with Randy Moss and Wes Welker NE lead the league in YAC yards...that should tell you about him.

If you guys want to see real true fans head over to the coalition I even registered to tell them they were stupid and the entire board jumped on me...they have a poll over there about who do you want as the Chiefs QB next year...Sanchez has 20 votes, Stafford has 14 Croyle has 13 and Tyler Thigpen has 120 this fan base LOVES them some shitty QB.

Yes he has more than everyone else combined, and they just hit you with the same arguments this guy does and go look at his stats! Then say funny shit like we didn't run the spread for him we ran it for the OL!

It makes me want to kill them for being stupid.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 04:55 PM
I just wanted to see how highly you guys rank the #3 pick. I think you guys get so caught up with it being the #3 pick that you forget that it represents Sanchez.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 04:56 PM
I think the value of the #3 pick is OVERRATED and I do want to trade it.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 04:56 PM
I just wanted to see how highly you guys rank the #3 pick. I think you guys get so caught up with it being the #3 pick that you forget that it represents Sanchez.

Mark Sanchez can be an elite QB in the league...he has everything you can ask a player to have physically and mentally I have never seen a QB who's teammates like him more and want to make plays for him more.

The Steelers vaunted defense last night folded, the difference between them and teams like the Titans and the 90s Chiefs is they have a legit franchise player at QB that won the game for them.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 04:57 PM
I just wanted to see how highly you guys rank the #3 pick. I think you guys get so caught up with it being the #3 pick that you forget that it represents Sanchez.

Sanchez is leaps and bounds better than Cassel.

kcbubb
02-02-2009, 05:02 PM
I hope that everyone of you haters can answer this question for me.

How can you value Sanchez as THAT much better Cassell?

Cassell has one year of experience with a talented team where he put up good numbers.

Sanchez has one year of experience with a talented team in a weak defensive conference where he put up good numbers.

How can you justify that Sanchez is more than half a draft (the pats 1st, 2nd and 5th) better than Cassell?

RustShack
02-02-2009, 05:06 PM
Cassel doesn't have the physical tools like Sanchez. Sanchez could become a great QB, Cassel is a serviceable starter.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 05:07 PM
Carl is gone, get over being mediocre buddy.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 05:08 PM
Cassel is already 26, and he can only put up 20 TD's in that offense? Is that seriously what you want? Our offense is a lot worse, our defense is a lot worse. He will be no better than Tyler Thigpen.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:11 PM
Matt Cassell this fan base loves them some shitty QB...

I might be able to throw 20 TD's swinging passes out to Randy Moss...

He was put into a situation to play on the best offense in the league a record setting offense...and he had a solid but unspectacular year and caused their sack total to double in less pass attempts.

The point here is I think nearly any QB could do what Cassell did in that situation, the Pats had the most rush yards they've had in forever this year.

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 05:12 PM
Matt Cassell this fan base loves them some shitty QB...

I might be able to throw 20 TD's swinging passes out to Randy Moss...

He was put into a situation to play on the best offense in the league a record setting offense...and he had a solid but unspectacular year and caused their sack total to double in less pass attempts.

The point here is I think nearly any QB could do what Cassell did in that situation, the Pats had the most rush yards they've had in forever this year.

come on mecca you are smarter than this

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:14 PM
come on mecca you are smarter than this

With Matt Cassell and alot of talent around him the Patriots are a fringe playoff team, with Tom Brady they are a superbowl team, any questions?

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 05:18 PM
With Matt Cassell and alot of talent around him the Patriots are a fringe playoff team, with Tom Brady they are a superbowl team, any questions?

they still won 11 games. how do YOU know how this season would have worked out if brady stayed healthy. also it was cassell's 1st year starting Hell playing for all purposes

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:19 PM
How many times did you watch Cassell play?

There's more to a player than his stats.

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 05:27 PM
How many times did you watch Cassell play?

There's more to a player than his stats.

probably as much as you. i watch every televised game, no sunday ticket you?

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:33 PM
I saw plenty of him and my thought is their coaching staff got the most out of him you could realistically expect.

His arm is not strong they ran the ball more than they had in years and let him throw short passes to Moss and Welker so they could run, it was smart for the 1 year they had to get by but he's not a player to build your team around.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 05:37 PM
I think the value of the #3 pick is OVERRATED and I do want to trade it.

Yes because possibly drafting a franchise QB is overrated.

Danman
02-02-2009, 05:38 PM
Nope-the Pioli watch thread is still longer.

Cassell is a good back up QB period. He's not a franchise QB at all. Some poor team probably will pay too steep a price to get him and I hope it the Raiders. I'm sure Al Davis has already fallen in love with him. He can have him. I want Sanchez. I'm OK with him sitting for a year. Even if he signs for $70 mil. You're drafting him on what he'll be able to do in 2011 and beyond. Like I said in a previous post in this thread, realistically were no more than 6 wins next year.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:41 PM
Yes because possibly drafting a franchise QB is overrated.

People wanting to emulate the 90s team that never won shit is really starting to annoy me.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 05:43 PM
With our high pick last year the Chiefs drafted a building block for the defense, this year we need our building block on offense. Later rounds, future drafts, and free agency should be used to build around these two players.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 05:45 PM
come on mecca you are smarter than this

Yeah hes giving him too much credit, nearly any NFL QB could have done BETTER than Cassel could. Hell Thigpen might even put up better stats in that offense.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:45 PM
With our high pick last year the Chiefs drafted a building block for the defense, this year we need our building block on offense. Later rounds, future drafts, and free agency should be used to build around these two players.

It's the same shit every year, we had a bunch of people last year talking about how Matt Ryan sucked and we shouldn't have any interest in picking him.

What do these people want? A offensive lineman or defensive player with every pick?

RustShack
02-02-2009, 05:46 PM
Yes because possibly drafting a franchise QB is overrated.

If you look at all the good teams right now, the majority of them drafted a QB in the first round.

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 05:46 PM
they still won 11 games. how do YOU know how this season would have worked out if brady stayed healthy. also it was cassell's 1st year starting Hell playing for all purposes

The only reason the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl last night is because the best team in the AFC lost its starting QB in week one.

The mere fact that the Patriots won 11 games without Brady goes to show that they would have easily won 11 games with Brady.

Brady is the best quarterback in the league, bar none.

Matt Cassel is NOT Steve Young. Nor is he Trent Dilfer. He's likely Jeff Hostetler, a guy who has great results when surrounded by amazing talent and coaching, but is just average at best without it. He's not a game changer nor is he a Hall of Fame QB.

Cassel is a game manager who's not required to actually make plays and win games by himself.

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 05:47 PM
Yeah hes giving him too much credit, nearly any NFL QB could have done BETTER than Cassel could. Hell Thigpen might even put up better stats in that offense.

COME ON man. what 4 or 5 400 yard games in a row while as mecca has said running more than in years. ANY qb could do that

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 05:48 PM
The only reason the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl last night is because the best team in the AFC lost its starting QB in week one.

The mere fact that the Patriots won 11 games without Brady goes to show that they would have easily won 11 games with Brady.Brady is the best quarterback in the league, bar none.

Matt Cassel is NOT Steve Young. Nor is he Trent Dilfer. He's likely Jeff Hostetler, a guy who has great results when surrounded by amazing talent and coaching, but is just average at best without it. He's not a game changer nor is he a Hall of Fame QB.

Cassel is a game manager who's not required to actually make plays and win games by himself.

11 still would have left them out. and had brady stayed healthy other things could have happened. who is to say the rest of the year would have played out the same way?

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:49 PM
If Brady hadn't gotten injured the Pats would have been the 1 true elite team this year..this was the year of no elite teams because of his injury.

Reaper16
02-02-2009, 05:50 PM
Jason, what are you doing? You are being dumb.

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 05:52 PM
If Brady hadn't gotten injured the Pats would have been the 1 true elite team this year..this was the year of no elite teams because of his injury.

last time i'm going to say it: the season could have played out totally differently had brady not been injured, and maybe not even for the better

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 05:53 PM
last time i'm going to say it: the season could have played out totally differently had brady not been injured, and maybe not even for the better

Ummm....more than likely not. Brady is 100 times better than Cassell.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:53 PM
.....

I wonder if Jason drinks before he posts.

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 05:53 PM
Jason, what are you doing? You are being dumb.

i'm not saying i even want cassell, just saying that not every QB in the nfl could do what he did, hell i dont know that some starters could

DaneMcCloud
02-02-2009, 05:54 PM
11 still would have left them out. and had brady stayed healthy other things could have happened. who is to say the rest of the year would have played out the same way?

Come on, Dude.

You don't take the best QB in the league, the same guy who set offensive records the year before, the same guy who led his team to 16-0 out of the equation and realistically expect a guy who hasn't started a game since high school to be better on the field.

Brady would have easily won 11 games and probably closer to 16 had he been healthy.

This should not even be a discussion.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 05:55 PM
i'm not saying i even want cassell, just saying that not every QB in the nfl could do what he did, hell i dont know that some starters could

What?!? I would go out on a limb and say that about 27 out of 32 QBs in the league could have put up better numbers than Cassell on that team.

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 05:55 PM
.....

I wonder if Jason drinks before he posts.

nope just dont see how some speak with such absolutes when no one can actually say for sure. tom brady could have had an off year, moss could have gotten hurt BB could have gone crazy IDK and neither do you

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:56 PM
Lets speak with common sense as the standard ok?

Reaper16
02-02-2009, 05:58 PM
nope just dont see how some speak with such absolutes when no one can actually say for sure. tom brady could have had an off year, moss could have gotten hurt BB could have gone crazy IDK and neither do you
Well, looks like the whole scouting and player evaluation side of the sport is useless now. We don't know what is gonna' happen, so let's expect that all of the possible crazy stuff is going to.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 05:59 PM
Well, looks like the whole scouting and player evaluation side of the sport is useless now. We don't know what is gonna' happen, so let's expect that all of the possible crazy stuff is going to.

I think the Royals should watch out this year Alex Gordon might lose it and attack someone with a bat!

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 06:00 PM
Well, looks like the whole scouting and player evaluation side of the sport is useless now. We don't know what is gonna' happen, so let's expect that all of the possible crazy stuff is going to.

not what i'm getting at, just the ball bounces funny sometimes . once again i dont even really want the guy.

theorangelion
02-02-2009, 06:01 PM
Ummm....more than likely not. Brady is 100 times better than Cassell.

No doubt about it, I just don't understand why so many think we should get Cassell. Maybe its the anything is better than Thigpen mentality.:hmmm:

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 06:01 PM
I think the Royals should watch out this year Alex Gordon might lose it and attack someone with a bat!

really is that the same as moss getting hurt or brady having an off year? the BB part was joking. and offerman DID play for the royals

Mecca
02-02-2009, 06:02 PM
No doubt about it, I just don't understand why so many think we should get Cassell. Maybe its the anything is better than Thigpen mentality.:hmmm:

I don't know why some people act like drafting a quarterback is the same as sticking your dick in acid.

JASONSAUTO
02-02-2009, 06:03 PM
I don't know why some people act like drafting a quarterback is the same as sticking your dick in acid.

hell i would love to hear sanchez's name called 45 minutes into the draft

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2009, 06:30 PM
I don't know why some people act like drafting a quarterback is the same as sticking your dick in acid.

Drafting a QB is one thing. Reaching for a QB because you walk into the draft with the mentality that you are drafting a QB no ifs, ands, or buts about it is moronic. If Sanchez earns a #3 pick grade from Pioli, then I'm all for the Chiefs drafting him. But there are plenty of critics who are already questioning if Sanchez is ready and I promise there will be a lot more. Case-in-point, every draftnik had the Browns taking Brady Quinn at #3. Boy did they all look like morons when he fell all the way out of the top 20.

You don't reach because you are drafting out of need. PERIOD. Sanchez has a lot of questions to answer and people are still definitively saying he's a #3 pick. That's interesting. He is not even CLOSE to the consensus top 5 pick that guys like Eli or Palmer were and he carries a HELL of a lot more question marks than Matt Ryan did.

Molitoth
02-02-2009, 06:31 PM
Drafting a QB is one thing. Reaching for a QB because you walk into the draft with the mentality that you are drafting a QB no ifs, ands, or buts about it is moronic. If Sanchez earns a #3 pick grade from Pioli, then I'm all for the Chiefs drafting him. But there are plenty of critics who are already questioning if Sanchez is ready and I promise there will be a lot more. Case-in-point, every draftnik had the Browns taking Brady Quinn at #3. Boy did they all look like morons when he fell all the way out of the top 20.

You don't reach because you are drafting out of need. PERIOD. Sanchez has a lot of questions to answer and people are still definitively saying he's a #3 pick. That's interesting. He is not even CLOSE to the consensus top 5 pick that guys like Eli or Palmer were and he carries a HELL of a lot more question marks than Matt Ryan did.

This.

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2009, 06:32 PM
What?!? I would go out on a limb and say that about 27 out of 32 QBs in the league could have put up better numbers than Cassell on that team.

Then you are on crack.

Cassell had a lot of help. But that is laughable to brush off an 11-win season where a guy threw for over 3,500+ yards and over 15 TDs in his first NFL season as a pro.

Cassell had a very good season. Is he a long-term answer? I don't know. But that is an absolutely ridiculous statement to claim that he is one of the bottom 5 starters in the NFL.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 06:46 PM
Its sad how many people think just because your surrounded by greatness means your suddenly great.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 06:52 PM
Funny I thought Roethlisberger was a better prospect than Eli Manning and the only thing that made Eli a higher pick was his last name.

I would have taken Roethlisberger with the #1 pick that year...

You go with what you personally think, there is no determining factor as to whether a QB makes it or not. Personally I think coming from a pro style offense with his top physical tools outweighs any negative. Mark Sanchez is a better prospect than anyone that will be in next years draft unless you love the spread monkeys.

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2009, 07:00 PM
Funny I thought Roethlisberger was a better prospect than Eli Manning and the only thing that made Eli a higher pick was his last name.

I would have taken Roethlisberger with the #1 pick that year...

You go with what you personally think, there is no determining factor as to whether a QB makes it or not. Personally I think coming from a pro style offense with his top physical tools outweighs any negative. Mark Sanchez is a better prospect than anyone that will be in next years draft unless you love the spread monkeys.

The reason Roethlisberger and Flacco fell is quite another--because of the level of competition. I like Sanchez, like I said. But I'm not convinced he's worth a #3 pick. And I think there are a lot of scouts who are currently at that same mindset, unless they are shown otherwise in their evaluations.

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2009, 07:02 PM
Its sad how many people think just because your surrounded by greatness means your suddenly great.

It's also sad how many people will rip on a guy for being surrounded by greatness. Maybe we should take away Montana's Super Bowl rings because he was surrounded by Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, John Taylor, and Brent Jones, not to mentioned coached by Bill Walsh.

You never heard the same excuses for Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco, nevermind the fact that they both QBed for teams with top 5 running games.

Cassell had a solid year. What's his upside? Who knows. But it's laughable that in this thread, we have heard that a QB who has never played an NFL snap is better than him, that he is a bottom 5 QB in the NFL, and that he is nothing more than a backup.

Give me a break.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 07:05 PM
See the one knock he has is experience, people point that out because they feel guys are sloppy and can't read defenses and things like that..

The truth is, Sanchez is not sloppy he has better mechanics and footwork than Stafford does, his feet are NFL caliber right now. And he is very capable of reading defenses and making line checks do to the offense he was in for 4 years in college.

Even with the lack of starting experience his preparation, where he's at with the little things, and especially his intangibles, I feel he's ready from what I've seen. He does all the little things very well, those are the kind of things people want experience so the guy will learn them, he already has them.

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2009, 07:09 PM
See the one knock he has is experience, people point that out because they feel guys are sloppy and can't read defenses and things like that..

The truth is, Sanchez is not sloppy he has better mechanics and footwork than Stafford does, his feet are NFL caliber right now. And he is very capable of reading defenses and making line checks do to the offense he was in for 4 years in college.

Even with the lack of starting experience his preparation, where he's at with the little things, and especially his intangibles, I feel he's ready from what I've seen. He does all the little things very well, those are the kind of things people want experience so the guy will learn them, he already has them.

I may be in the minority, but I think Sanchez has better upside because I just see a leadership quality/fire in him that I don't see as much of in Stafford. I know Stafford is a good kid, but I just see Sanchez as a QB that players will be willing to roll over in traffic for.

But still... I think he's got a lot to prove in the combine, and I don't think you can walk into the draft with a "QB or bust" mentality. If Sanchez earns a top 5 grade, you take him. If he doesn't, you don't. That sounds simple, and yet you see so many teams take a QB in the top 5 because they have to even if he may not have graded that well according to their evaluations.

The good news is, I have a ton of trust to make that decision. I just don't think it's nearly the slam dunk everyone says it is.

Mecca
02-02-2009, 07:13 PM
I don't know what a workout is going to tell you about Sanchez that you don't already know, he has supreme physical talent, he has a top notch arm, he doesn't have the super bazooka Stafford does but he has a 1 in a billion arm.

He has great feet, very good mechanics, intangibles that are 2nd to none, this is a guy that is the most physically gifted QB to play at SC since Palmer.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 07:33 PM
It's also sad how many people will rip on a guy for being surrounded by greatness. Maybe we should take away Montana's Super Bowl rings because he was surrounded by Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, John Taylor, and Brent Jones, not to mentioned coached by Bill Walsh.

You never heard the same excuses for Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco, nevermind the fact that they both QBed for teams with top 5 running games.

Cassell had a solid year. What's his upside? Who knows. But it's laughable that in this thread, we have heard that a QB who has never played an NFL snap is better than him, that he is a bottom 5 QB in the NFL, and that he is nothing more than a backup.

Give me a break.

Montana was great with those players. Brady was great with these players. Like you said, Cassel was just solid. OK now you take away all the talent, does the solid player get better or worse? Cassel + KC = FAIL

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2009, 08:18 PM
Montana was great with those players. Brady was great with these players. Like you said, Cassel was just solid. OK now you take away all the talent, does the solid player get better or worse? Cassel + KC = FAIL

Montana's numbers with Rice/Taylor is not much different from Cassell's numbers with Moss/Welker.

I'm not saying Cassell is Joe Montana. Montana is my boyhood idol and I still think he's the best in history (before Manning and Brady came along). But the argument that Cassell's numbers should be downplayed because of his supporting cast is pretty brutal, especially given that it was his first season as a starter in the NFL.

For his experience level, Cassell had an outstanding season. Whether he's a long-term starter has yet to be seen, but it amazes me that people would use last season as a knock against his abilities.

RustShack
02-02-2009, 08:20 PM
Montana also played in a day when passing wasn't nearly as big as it is now.

Pestilence
02-02-2009, 08:27 PM
Cassell doesn't play in the West Coast offense.

Deberg_1990
02-02-2009, 08:31 PM
Funny I thought Roethlisberger was a better prospect than Eli Manning and the only thing that made Eli a higher pick was his last name.




Man, what a QB draft 04 was. Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger all within the top 15.

Danman
02-03-2009, 05:15 AM
Drafting a QB is one thing. Reaching for a QB because you walk into the draft with the mentality that you are drafting a QB no ifs, ands, or buts about it is moronic. If Sanchez earns a #3 pick grade from Pioli, then I'm all for the Chiefs drafting him. But there are plenty of critics who are already questioning if Sanchez is ready and I promise there will be a lot more. Case-in-point, every draftnik had the Browns taking Brady Quinn at #3. Boy did they all look like morons when he fell all the way out of the top 20.

You don't reach because you are drafting out of need. PERIOD. Sanchez has a lot of questions to answer and people are still definitively saying he's a #3 pick. That's interesting. He is not even CLOSE to the consensus top 5 pick that guys like Eli or Palmer were and he carries a HELL of a lot more question marks than Matt Ryan did.

Sanchez started out as a mid to late 1st round pick by the draftnicks. He's now top 5 or top 10 in most. He is the #1 choice for the lions in one. He is not a reach. He is my first choice. I've stated several reasons why. Stafford would be my second choice.

Question is, are the rams tempted to take QB. The case can be made that they also have the #2 pick in the draft and may never be in position to take QB, and they are rebuilding with a new GM and HC. If both QBs are gone, who do we pick? If, as we've said, we can't trade out of the third spot, I take Curry. And yes I'm quite aware that you normally don't take a LB that high, but I still don't like the DEs and we already have a good young LT and two young CBs.

Coogs
02-03-2009, 07:15 AM
Question is, are the rams tempted to take QB. The case can be made that they also have the #2 pick in the draft and may never be in position to take QB, and they are rebuilding with a new GM and HC. If both QBs are gone, who do we pick?

Or if these two grade out real high, does someone jump the Chiefs to get into the #2 spot. It appears if you want a QB from those two, that is what it is going to take to get it done.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 07:57 AM
Drafting a QB is one thing. Reaching for a QB because you walk into the draft with the mentality that you are drafting a QB no ifs, ands, or buts about it is moronic. If Sanchez earns a #3 pick grade from Pioli, then I'm all for the Chiefs drafting him. But there are plenty of critics who are already questioning if Sanchez is ready and I promise there will be a lot more. Case-in-point, every draftnik had the Browns taking Brady Quinn at #3. Boy did they all look like morons when he fell all the way out of the top 20.

You don't reach because you are drafting out of need. PERIOD. Sanchez has a lot of questions to answer and people are still definitively saying he's a #3 pick. That's interesting. He is not even CLOSE to the consensus top 5 pick that guys like Eli or Palmer were and he carries a HELL of a lot more question marks than Matt Ryan did.

Thank you. I'm glad someone pointed out that he does have a some question marks. Does Cassel have some risk too? Yes, they both do. But how most you guys value Sanchez as infinitely better or at minimum half a draft better than Cassel is not realistic.

RustShack
02-03-2009, 08:21 AM
Thank you. I'm glad someone pointed out that he does have a some question marks. Does Cassel have some risk too? Yes, they both do. But how most you guys value Sanchez as infinitely better or at minimum half a draft better than Cassel is not realistic.

There has never been a perfect prospect fag nuts. Everyone has had and always will have question marks. There is going to be douche bags like you every year crying about the best prospects in year because of a question mark and little bitches like you crying for Carl to take us the safe route and bring in a proven QB so we can get back to a first round playoff loss.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 09:00 AM
There has never been a perfect prospect pillowbiter nuts. Everyone has had and always will have question marks. There is going to be douche bags like you every year crying about the best prospects in year because of a question mark and little bitches like you crying for Carl to take us the safe route and bring in a proven QB so we can get back to a first round playoff loss.

The best teams are normally in the hunt for the superbowl. The Chiefs have a ton of holes. I think it is better to get several picks for one and trying to improve the entire team instead of picking a QB to play on a bad team. I know... I know.... terrible idea.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 09:03 AM
The best teams are normally in the hunt for the superbowl. The Chiefs have a ton of holes. I think it is better to get several picks for one and trying to improve the entire team instead of picking a QB to play on a bad team. I know... I know.... terrible idea.

STOP. TRYING. TO. TRADE. DOWN. It's not going to happen.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 09:32 AM
STOP. TRYING. TO. TRADE. DOWN. It's not going to happen.

If Sanchez is worth as much as you guys say he is, then it should be easy. I would take a 2nd and 4th this year and a 2nd and 5th next year to move back. And maybe take advantage of all the defensive talent that is coming out next year.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 09:38 AM
If Sanchez is worth as much as you guys say he is, then it should be easy. I would take a 2nd and 4th this year and a 2nd and 5th next year to move back. And maybe take advantage of all the defensive talent that is coming out next year.

If Sanchez is worth what we say he is......THEN WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T WE JUST DRAFT HIM!?

DeezNutz
02-03-2009, 09:44 AM
If Sanchez is worth what we say he is......THEN WHY THE **** WOULDN'T WE JUST DRAFT HIM!?

Because you don't add potentially great quarterbacks to bad teams.

Wait. WTF?!?

jAZ
02-03-2009, 09:46 AM
Thank you. I'm glad someone pointed out that he does have a some question marks. Does Cassel have some risk too? Yes, they both do. But how most you guys value Sanchez as infinitely better or at minimum half a draft better than Cassel is not realistic.
I have zero problem using our #3 pick on Cassell if Pioli thinks its the best use of that pick.

None.

The best part of this draft is that we have someone who has intimate knowledge of one of the high profile QBs on the market, and a reputation for learning everything that is necessary to draft a player. So we are in good hands. And if Pioli thinks that Cassell is better than either Stafford or Sanchez and is worth a #3 overall pick, I'd be shocked, but excited.

RustShack
02-03-2009, 10:01 AM
The best teams are normally in the hunt for the superbowl. The Chiefs have a ton of holes. I think it is better to get several picks for one and trying to improve the entire team instead of picking a QB to play on a bad team. I know... I know.... terrible idea.

Just quit trying, if you think trading down is an option you are fucking stupid. Five years ago, yeah no problem... it just doesn't happen anymore unless there is a player that is once in a lifetime, which there isn't one this year. The compensation and money is way to much now to trade up.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 10:08 AM
Just quit trying, if you think trading down is an option you are fucking stupid. Five years ago, yeah no problem... it just doesn't happen anymore unless there is a player that is once in a lifetime, which there isn't one this year. The compensation and money is way to much now to trade up.

Que the "Draft Chart is retarded" argument.

ChiefRon
02-03-2009, 10:13 AM
This is like that movie "Groundhog Day" every day the exact same thing happens.

No news, wild rumors, people arguing to trade down, draft chart makes no sense why can't we trade down cause I'm scared to draft a QB with #3, we need to stock up on mid and late round picks cause we have so many needs, blah-blah.

JFC...

Coogs
02-03-2009, 10:21 AM
I caught this article in our local newspaper (The Salina Journal). I thought it was an iinteresting take on what you want and don't want in a franchise QB. What you do want sounds a whole lot like what Sanchez brings to the table...

Jay needs extreme makeover
By Terry Frei
The Denver Post
Posted: 02/03/2009 12:30:00 AM MST
Updated: 02/03/2009 01:18:00 AM MST


Not looking and acting the part of a leader - on and off the field - will only hurt Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler. Something Jake Plummer said to The Denver Post's Mike Klis last week jumped out at me.

No, it wasn't what Plummer said about ousted Broncos coach Mike Shanahan.

It was Plummer's assessment of his one-time teammate and quarterback successor, Jay Cutler.

"He's a great quarterback, don't get me wrong," Plummer said. "I'm not saying anything to disrespect him. I think he's a hell of a player. But Jeff George was a hell of a player. There's a lot of guys who have been great players."

It's a given: Great players and great talents are not necessarily great quarterbacks.

One of the reasons I winced when reading Plummer's comments, however, was that in a previous professional stop, I wrote a magazine story in 1995 that tackled the issue of whether a certain much-maligned, widely despised, and unquestionably highly talented NFL quarterback had — at long last — grown up.

While unrepentant and defiant about his earlier actions in college, and at Indianapolis, Jeff George — the top overall pick in the 1990 draft — persuaded me that he had matured, and he would become both a great quarterback and a leader in his second season with the Falcons.

So did his head coach, June Jones, and his position coach, Mouse Davis. The two run-and-shoot gurus were convincing, both on and off the record. I didn't have enough tape for all of Davis' raves about George's awe-inspiring talent.

What happened? George had a solid 1995 season for Atlanta, but in September 1996 he imploded on the sideline after being pulled in the third game of the season. He was suspended and never played for the Falcons again. I was left thinking that if he couldn't get along with the affable and respected Jones, who had staked his job and reputation on George, he couldn't get along with anybody. In 1997, he led the league in passing yards for a 4-12 Raiders team, but he never shook the image of an underachieving rockhead — and loser, in more ways than one

Jeff George as he moved along from Oakland to Minnesota and Washington.
Unlike George, Cutler never will be accused of having a million-dollar arm, a dime-store attitude and a scarecrow's brain. He's not that bad, but being compared to George, even if it was done by a deposed quarterback who carries an ax with him in the Idaho woods, should give Cutler — and those around him — pause for additional thought.

How Cutler acts away from Dove Valley is his business, although one of the realities of his business is that tongues wag. Beyond that, and more important, he too often seems unconcerned about attempting to project the aura of class and leadership that the great quarterbacks have, both in the dressing and meeting rooms, and so many other places.

They have "it." Their teammates spot it. Their coaches feel it. The fans know it. Cutler doesn't yet have "it" and, even worse, doesn't seem to much care.

He deserves praise and perhaps occasional leeway for his battle with diabetes, and this is a guy who made it through four years at Vanderbilt, so he's not intellectually deficient. Yet that only goes so far.

I'm not into dress codes or mandatory use of hair spray and a brush, but it's all part of a package, and if you look like, well, a slob while doing interviews at the Super Bowl while the next young quarterback on the set looks as if he just stepped off the pages of Esquire, that doesn't help.

Eyes half-closed and an attitude of disinterest at the interview podium that makes it look as if you just awakened five minutes ago — even if you've been at Dove Valley for six hours — doesn't bolster the image, either.
Does any of that matter? Absolutely. The quarterback's unmatched responsibility as a leader, and his need to inspire and envelop others in that winner's aura, makes the ancillary issues important too. And that includes being likable, both by his teammates and everyone he comes in contact with.

Any quarterback's world is far different, also, in 2009 than it was in, say, 1985. The spotlight is brighter, the attention more relentless, the secrets fewer.

It's time for Cutler to be a great quarterback, and all that goes along with it. Or Plummer will be remembered not for being out of line, but for being the first to publicly note that George and Cutler have more in common than being native Hoosiers.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 11:17 AM
Que the "Draft Chart is retarded" argument.


I think you asked for an example of a trade. It's not impossible to trade down. It would probably take a couple of picks this year and a couple of pics next year. That would be my guess.

The trade last year where the Pats traded with the Saints and moved from 7 to 10. The Pats received a 3rd rounder (#78) but had to give a 5th rounder (#164) to move back three spots.

There is also an old trade from 2003 where the Bears traded with the Jets. The Bears moved back from the #4 pick to the #13 pick for the #22 pick and a fourth rounder. They moved 9 spots.

MahiMike
02-03-2009, 11:19 AM
Just quit trying, if you think trading down is an option you are ****ing stupid. Five years ago, yeah no problem... it just doesn't happen anymore unless there is a player that is once in a lifetime, which there isn't one this year. The compensation and money is way to much now to trade up.

I disagree. The cap goes up every year and plenty of teams are below last year's cap. So they basically have 2 years worth of savings to spend on a guy this year. Also, next year there may be NO cap and the player's agents might try and break the bank. Better to trade up this year than any in the last 5 years.

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 11:36 AM
I can't wait till they put in rookie salary slotting, and do away with all this BS that goes along with rookie contracts. They get WAY too much money for players who have never taken a snap. It hurt teams really bad when you miss on a guy, and makes it almost impossible to trade high picks.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 11:52 AM
I think you asked for an example of a trade. It's not impossible to trade down. It would probably take a couple of picks this year and a couple of pics next year. That would be my guess.

The trade last year where the Pats traded with the Saints and moved from 7 to 10. The Pats received a 3rd rounder (#78) but had to give a 5th rounder (#164) to move back three spots.

There is also an old trade from 2003 where the Bears traded with the Jets. The Bears moved back from the #4 pick to the #13 pick for the #22 pick and a fourth rounder. They moved 9 spots.

Once again....#3 and #7 are completely different.

So because back in 2003.....the Bears traded out of the #4 spot to the #13 spot...and then to the #22 spot and got a 4th rounder.....you want us too? Let's see who they got trading back......

Rex Grossman.

Who are the players they passed up to get Grossman.

Terrell Suggs
Dewayne Robertson
Terence Newman
Johnathan Sullivan
Byron Leftwich
Jordan Gross
Kevin Williams
Marcus Trufant
Jimmy Kennedy
Ty Warren
Michael Haynes
Jerome McDougle
Troy Polamalu
Bryant Johnson
Calvin Pace
Kyle Boller
George Foster
Jeff Faine


And who'd they grab with that 4th round pick? Ian Scott.

ChiefRon
02-03-2009, 11:57 AM
Once again....#3 and #7 are completely different.

So because back in 2003.....the Bears traded out of the #4 spot to the #13 spot...and then to the #22 spot and got a 4th rounder.....you want us too? Let's see who they got trading back......

Rex Grossman.

Who are the players they passed up to get Grossman.

Terrell Suggs
Dewayne Robertson
Terence Newman
Johnathan Sullivan
Byron Leftwich
Jordan Gross
Kevin Williams
Marcus Trufant
Jimmy Kennedy
Ty Warren
Michael Haynes
Jerome McDougle
Troy Polamalu
Bryant Johnson
Calvin Pace
Kyle Boller
George Foster
Jeff Faine


And who'd they grab with that 4th round pick? Ian Scott.

Wow, that's a scary list, that's enough to scare you away from trading down no matter what the deal is...

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 12:03 PM
Once again....#3 and #7 are completely different.

So because back in 2003.....the Bears traded out of the #4 spot to the #13 spot...and then to the #22 spot and got a 4th rounder.....you want us too? Let's see who they got trading back......

Rex Grossman.

Who are the players they passed up to get Grossman.

Terrell Suggs
Dewayne Robertson
Terence Newman
Johnathan Sullivan
Byron Leftwich
Jordan Gross
Kevin Williams
Marcus Trufant
Jimmy Kennedy
Ty Warren
Michael Haynes
Jerome McDougle
Troy Polamalu
Bryant Johnson
Calvin Pace
Kyle Boller
George Foster
Jeff Faine


And who'd they grab with that 4th round pick? Ian Scott.

So, really the trade was Dewayne Robertson(#4) for the 13th pick (Ty Warren), Rex Grossman (#22) and Ian Scott (4th rounder).

And yes, I would take that type of trade. I think their is more value in the positions that we need (DE & LB) in the middle of the first round.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 12:05 PM
So, really the trade was Dewayne Robertson(#4) for the 13th pick (Ty Warren), Rex Grossman (#22) and Ian Scott (4th rounder).

And yes, I would take that type of trade. I think their is more value in the positions that we need (DE & LB) in the middle of the first round.

EDIT: I"m checking on it now.

Frosty
02-03-2009, 12:08 PM
So, really the trade was Dewayne Robertson(#4) for the 13th pick (Ty Warren), Rex Grossman (#22) and Ian Scott (4th rounder).

Ty Warren is a Patriot, so something doesn't add up here.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 12:09 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/draft/news/2003/04/26/nfl_draft_ap/

The New York Jets used the fourth overall pick to take defensive tackle Dewayne Robertson. The Jets dealt the 13th and 22nd draft picks to the Chicago Bears on Friday for a shot at taking Robertson.

The New England Patriots flip-flopped picks with the Chicago Bears, moving up a notch to take defensive tackle Ty Warren of Texas A&M.

The Chicago Bears selected Penn State defensive end Michael Haynes with the 14th overall choice in the draft.

The Chicago Bears have a new quarterback. Florida's Rex Grossman was taken with the 22nd pick.

So they traded out of the #4 spot for the #13, #22 and a 4th round pick. They selected Michael Haynes, Rex Grossman and Ian Scott.

Chicago traded its first-round (No. 13) choice to New England for the Patriots first- (No. 14) and sixth-round (No. 193) choices. New England selected Ty Warren, DT, Texas A&M. Chicago selected Michael Haynes, DE, Penn St. and (No. 193).

So it looks like to move down from the #4 spot. They got 2 1sts, a 4th and a 6th. The 4th from the Jets and the 6th from the Pats for flip flopping.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 12:16 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/draft/news/2003/04/26/nfl_draft_ap/

The New York Jets used the fourth overall pick to take defensive tackle Dewayne Robertson. The Jets dealt the 13th and 22nd draft picks to the Chicago Bears on Friday for a shot at taking Robertson.

The New England Patriots flip-flopped picks with the Chicago Bears, moving up a notch to take defensive tackle Ty Warren of Texas A&M.

The Chicago Bears selected Penn State defensive end Michael Haynes with the 14th overall choice in the draft.

The Chicago Bears have a new quarterback. Florida's Rex Grossman was taken with the 22nd pick.

So they traded out of the #4 spot for the #13, #22 and a 4th round pick. They selected Michael Haynes, Rex Grossman and Ian Scott.

nope... the bears traded down again. they traded the #13 pick to the pats for the #14 pick and a late round pick. they took Michael Haynes with the #14 pick.

My original comment was correct. The Bears traded the #4 (Dewayne Robertson) pick for three picks #13 (Ty Warren), #22 (Rex Grossman), and 4th rounder (Ian Scott). Three picks for one.

The Ty Warren pick was traded to the Pats for the 14th pick, Michael Haynes and somebody else...

RustShack
02-03-2009, 12:18 PM
So essentially what your saying is you would take Ty Warren over Robertson even though Robertson would fit our defense a lot better than Warren would? Or do you just think Grossman and Scott were good pickups too?

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 12:19 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/draft/news/2003/04/26/nfl_draft_ap/

The New York Jets used the fourth overall pick to take defensive tackle Dewayne Robertson. The Jets dealt the 13th and 22nd draft picks to the Chicago Bears on Friday for a shot at taking Robertson.

The New England Patriots flip-flopped picks with the Chicago Bears, moving up a notch to take defensive tackle Ty Warren of Texas A&M.

The Chicago Bears selected Penn State defensive end Michael Haynes with the 14th overall choice in the draft.

The Chicago Bears have a new quarterback. Florida's Rex Grossman was taken with the 22nd pick.

So they traded out of the #4 spot for the #13, #22 and a 4th round pick. They selected Michael Haynes, Rex Grossman and Ian Scott.

Chicago traded its first-round (No. 13) choice to New England for the Patriots first- (No. 14) and sixth-round (No. 193) choices. New England selected Ty Warren, DT, Texas A&M. Chicago selected Michael Haynes, DE, Penn St. and (No. 193).

So it looks like to move down from the #4 spot. They got 2 1sts, a 4th and a 6th. The 4th from the Jets and the 6th from the Pats for flip flopping.

yes.... you got it. but that was to move 10 spots. all the way to #14. essentially it cost a 1st, a 4th, and a 6th to move 10 spots. or just a 1st and a 4th to move 9 spots.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 12:22 PM
And guess what.....the 13th and the 22nd picks are equal in value to the 4th on the draft value chart.

What is your point? One time in the last 10 years....someone has traded out of the top 5. Notice how it hasn't happened lately? Because contracts back then weren't huge compared to the contracts they give out today. No one is going to throw away 2 1st round picks at the chance to draft someone at #3 and then pay them $70 million dollars. They could easily stay where they are.....get 2 talented guys and pay them less combined.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 12:23 PM
So essentially what your saying is you would take Ty Warren over Robertson even though Robertson would fit our defense a lot better than Warren would? Or do you just think Grossman and Scott were good pickups too?

I'm just using it as an example of what it would take for someone else to move up. It's probably not likely that we move that far. But it could be possible to move down 3-7 spots to the 6th-10th pick with a couple of picks this year and couple next year like a 2nd and 5th rounders this year and a 2nd and 5th rounders next year.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 12:23 PM
Just for shits and giggles......It takes the value of the 10th and 18th overall picks to move up to #3.

The only team that has two 1st round picks are the Eagles at 21 and 27. That equals around the 7th or 8th overall pick.

OnTheWarpath58
02-03-2009, 12:24 PM
I've never seen someone go so far to make no point whatsoever.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 12:26 PM
Just for shits and giggles......It takes the value of the 10th and 18th overall picks to move up to #3.

The only team that has two 1st round picks are the Eagles at 21 and 27. That equals around the 7th or 8th overall pick.

how does the pats and saints trade last year add up on the trade chart??? they moved back 3 spots and gained a 3rd rounder but gave up a 5th.

Coogs
02-03-2009, 12:27 PM
yes.... you got it. but that was to move 10 spots. all the way to #14. essentially it cost a 1st, a 4th, and a 6th to move 10 spots. or just a 1st and a 4th to move 9 spots.

It may be a small point, but it was actually two 1st round picks.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 12:30 PM
how does the pats and saints trade last year add up on the trade chart??? they moved back 3 spots and gained a 3rd rounder but gave up a 5th.

The value was very close but you're not understanding my point. The 7th pick and the 3rd pick are completely different in terms of value.

3rd pick = 2200 points
7th pick = 1500 points

The difference is equal to another 1st round pick.

OnTheWarpath58
02-03-2009, 12:30 PM
how does the pats and saints trade last year add up on the trade chart??? they moved back 3 spots and gained a 3rd rounder but gave up a 5th.

25 points in favor of the Saints.

So, next to nothing.

Great position for the Patriots, they saved $30M, $6M of it guaranteed. I'd say that was worth the equivalent of a 6th round pick.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 12:30 PM
It may be a small point, but it was actually two 1st round picks.

Correct....it cost the Jets two 1st round picks and a 4th round pick to move up 10 spots.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 12:31 PM
It may be a small point, but it was actually two 1st round picks. but they got a first too. I was say the cost to "move" 9 spots.

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 12:33 PM
25 points in favor of the Saints.

So, next to nothing.

Great position for the Patriots, they saved $30M, $6M of it guaranteed. I'd say that was worth the equivalent of a 6th round pick.

That move was an excellent one. They got the guy they wanted, saved some money, and picked up a third. Great move.

Coogs
02-03-2009, 12:33 PM
but they got a first too. I was say the cost to "move" 9 spots.


Yes they did get a 1st in return, but it cost them both of their first rounders plaus a bit more to move up. Not just one of thier first rounders.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 12:36 PM
The value was very close but you're not understanding my point. The 7th pick and the 3rd pick are completely different in terms of value.

3rd pick = 2200 points
7th pick = 1500 points

The difference is equal to another 1st round pick.

I got your point. I just wanted to see if they followed the chart.

chiefzilla1501
02-03-2009, 01:56 PM
Sanchez started out as a mid to late 1st round pick by the draftnicks. He's now top 5 or top 10 in most. He is the #1 choice for the lions in one. He is not a reach. He is my first choice. I've stated several reasons why. Stafford would be my second choice.

Question is, are the rams tempted to take QB. The case can be made that they also have the #2 pick in the draft and may never be in position to take QB, and they are rebuilding with a new GM and HC. If both QBs are gone, who do we pick? If, as we've said, we can't trade out of the third spot, I take Curry. And yes I'm quite aware that you normally don't take a LB that high, but I still don't like the DEs and we already have a good young LT and two young CBs.

The draftniks are split on Sanchez. There are many that think he is going into the draft one year way too soon. Sanchez as a top 5 QB is anything but a slam dunk. He needs to prove a lot to show that he deserves it, and I think it's retarded to hand it to him just because you walked into the #3 QB with tunnel vision, saying that the only pick you can take is a QB, no matter how he grades on your evaluation.

The draftniks, as you'll recall, had Brady Quinn going at #3, pretty consistently, and almost nobody had him falling past Miami. He wasn't even a top 20 QB. Same with Aaron Rodgers.

I have no problem with the Chiefs taking Sanchez at #3 if they truly believe he deserves that grade. I think we are the only city in America apart from California that is 100% convinced that this guy is a top 5 pick before the combine starts.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 01:58 PM
The draftniks are split on Sanchez. There are many that think he is going into the draft one year way too soon. Sanchez as a top 5 QB is anything but a slam dunk. He needs to prove a lot to show that he deserves it, and I think it's retarded to hand it to him just because you walked into the #3 QB with tunnel vision, saying that the only pick you can take is a QB, no matter how he grades on your evaluation.

The draftniks, as you'll recall, had Brady Quinn going at #3, pretty consistently, and almost nobody had him falling past Miami. He wasn't even a top 20 QB. Same with Aaron Rodgers.

I have no problem with the Chiefs taking Sanchez at #3 if they truly believe he deserves that grade. I think we are the only city in America apart from California that is 100% convinced that this guy is a top 5 pick before the combine starts.

The draftniks can't prepare for retarded fucking teams like the Dolphins. And the only reason that he fell to the Browns at #22 was the fact that every team after the Dolphins.....didn't need a QB. So using him as an example is retarded.

EDIT: To show teams....

Texans - Schaub
49ers - Still believed in Alex Smith
Bills - J.P. Losman...and had bigger needs at RB
Rams - Bulger
Jets - Pennington
Steelers - Big Ben
Packers - Rodgers
Broncos - Cutler
Bengals - Palmer
Titans - Young
Giants - Eli
Jags - Just gave Garrard a huge deal.

OnTheWarpath58
02-03-2009, 02:05 PM
The draftniks can't prepare for retarded fucking teams like the Dolphins. And the only reason that he fell to the Browns at #22 was the fact that every team after the Dolphins.....didn't need a QB. So using him as an example is retarded.

EDIT: To show teams....

Texans - Schaub
49ers - Still believed in Alex Smith
Bills - J.P. Losman...and had bigger needs at RB
Rams - Bulger
Jets - Pennington
Steelers - Big Ben
Packers - Rodgers
Broncos - Cutler
Bengals - Palmer
Titans - Young
Giants - Eli
Jags - Just gave Garrard a huge deal.


This.

And once Miami passed on Quinn, Cleveland knew they could wait to get back into the 1st round to take him -the next team that would have taken him is the Chiefs at 23.

What's Cleveland do?

Trades back into the 1st round, AHEAD of KC.

You're retarded if you think that Brady Quinn fell because he didn't grade out highly.

chiefzilla1501
02-03-2009, 02:19 PM
The draftniks can't prepare for retarded ****ing teams like the Dolphins. And the only reason that he fell to the Browns at #22 was the fact that every team after the Dolphins.....didn't need a QB. So using him as an example is retarded.

EDIT: To show teams....

Texans - Schaub
49ers - Still believed in Alex Smith
Bills - J.P. Losman...and had bigger needs at RB
Rams - Bulger
Jets - Pennington
Steelers - Big Ben
Packers - Rodgers
Broncos - Cutler
Bengals - Palmer
Titans - Young
Giants - Eli
Jags - Just gave Garrard a huge deal.

Okay. But hasn't the argument been made all along that unless you have an absolute answer at QB, that you should never pass on a franchise QB in the draft?

The Lions passed on Quinn to take a receiver
The Browns thought a LT was more important than their QB.
The Bucs passed on him in favor of Garcia and Gradkowski
The Vikings chose to upgrade their running game and rest their future on Tarvaris Jackson
The Falcons were comfortable enough with Joey Harrington and Chris Redman that they passed on Quinn
The Jets passed on a franchise QB to protect a veteran QB with a long history of proving that he couldn't stay on the field
The 49ers and Bills passed on a top 3 pick to protect a QB who had proven nothing in their career

And who's to say that Quinn wouldn't have slipped even further, had Cleveland not passed up on him?

Sorry, but you don't let a franchise QB slip that far. The draftniks had Quinn pegged as a top 3 pick, and tons of teams with an unstable QB situation passed on him. But if you actually paid attention, there were lots of experts who were very concerned about Quinn because he was very inaccurate as a college player and that he missed way too many easy throws at Notre Dame that he would never get away with in the pros.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2009, 02:24 PM
Okay. But hasn't the argument been made all along that unless you have an absolute answer at QB, that you should never pass on a franchise QB in the draft?

The Lions passed on Quinn to take a receiver
The Browns thought a LT was more important than their QB.
The Bucs passed on him in favor of Garcia and Gradkowski
The Vikings chose to upgrade their running game and rest their future on Tarvaris Jackson
The Falcons were comfortable enough with Joey Harrington and Chris Redman that they passed on Quinn
The Jets passed on a franchise QB to protect a veteran QB with a long history of proving that he couldn't stay on the field
The 49ers and Bills passed on a top 3 pick to protect a QB who had proven nothing in their career

And who's to say that Quinn wouldn't have slipped even further, had Cleveland not passed up on him?

Sorry, but you don't let a franchise QB slip that far. The draftniks had Quinn pegged as a top 3 pick, and tons of teams with an unstable QB situation passed on him. But if you actually paid attention, there were lots of experts who were very concerned about Quinn because he was very inaccurate as a college player and that he missed way too many easy throws at Notre Dame that he would never get away with in the pros.

And who is defending any of those teams passing on him? It was retarded, and they are retarded.

You are standing up for the likes of Matt Millen, and about 5 other GMs that have since been shitcanned.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 02:30 PM
Okay. But hasn't the argument been made all along that unless you have an absolute answer at QB, that you should never pass on a franchise QB in the draft?

The Lions passed on Quinn to take a receiver
The Browns thought a LT was more important than their QB.
The Bucs passed on him in favor of Garcia and Gradkowski
The Vikings chose to upgrade their running game and rest their future on Tarvaris Jackson
The Falcons were comfortable enough with Joey Harrington and Chris Redman that they passed on Quinn
The Jets passed on a franchise QB to protect a veteran QB with a long history of proving that he couldn't stay on the field
The 49ers and Bills passed on a top 3 pick to protect a QB who had proven nothing in their career

And who's to say that Quinn wouldn't have slipped even further, had Cleveland not passed up on him?

Sorry, but you don't let a franchise QB slip that far. The draftniks had Quinn pegged as a top 3 pick, and tons of teams with an unstable QB situation passed on him. But if you actually paid attention, there were lots of experts who were very concerned about Quinn because he was very inaccurate as a college player and that he missed way too many easy throws at Notre Dame that he would never get away with in the pros.

you are correct. and I bet it will be a similar situation if the Chiefs pass on him. I don't think he will fall as far as Quinn. The NFL doesn't value "potential" in a QB as much as these guys think they do.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2009, 02:37 PM
you are correct. and I bet it will be a similar situation if the Chiefs pass on him. I don't think he will fall as far as Quinn. The NFL doesn't value "potential" in a QB as much as these guys think they do.

Which is why JaMarcus Russell was drafted in the 4th round.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 02:39 PM
Okay. But hasn't the argument been made all along that unless you have an absolute answer at QB, that you should never pass on a franchise QB in the draft?

The Lions passed on Quinn to take a receiver
The Lions passed on Quinn because of Calvin Johnson. That's an easy question.
The Browns thought a LT was more important than their QB.
The Browns had Thomas rated higher than Quinn....and? They're offensive line was horrible.
The Bucs passed on him in favor of Garcia and Gradkowski
The Bucs wanted CJ but couldn't get him....and Adams was next on their list.

The Vikings chose to upgrade their running game and rest their future on Tarvaris Jackson
Ummm.....Adrian Peterson. Enough said.
The Falcons were comfortable enough with Joey Harrington and Chris Redman that they passed on Quinn
They felt that DE was a bigger hole on their team.
The Jets passed on a franchise QB to protect a veteran QB with a long history of proving that he couldn't stay on the field
The Jets had horrible CBs going into that year. So much so...I believe they traded up.
The 49ers and Bills passed on a top 3 pick to protect a QB who had proven nothing in their career
The Bills wanted a RB and when AD got taken....they went with the next best thing.

And who's to say that Quinn wouldn't have slipped even further, had Cleveland not passed up on him?
Quinn would not have fallen past the Chiefs.

Sorry, but you don't let a franchise QB slip that far. The draftniks had Quinn pegged as a top 3 pick, and tons of teams with an unstable QB situation passed on him. But if you actually paid attention, there were lots of experts who were very concerned about Quinn because he was very inaccurate as a college player and that he missed way too many easy throws at Notre Dame that he would never get away with in the pros.

Answers

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 02:39 PM
Which is why JaMarcus Russell was drafted in the 4th round.

I'm so glad the Faid picked him. He's gonna suck ass for years to come.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 02:40 PM
you are correct. and I bet it will be a similar situation if the Chiefs pass on him. I don't think he will fall as far as Quinn. The NFL doesn't value "potential" in a QB as much as these guys think they do.

Which is why JaMarcus Russell was drafted in the 4th round.

ROFL

Frosty
02-03-2009, 02:43 PM
The Falcons were comfortable enough with Joey Harrington and Chris Redman that they passed on Quinn

Vick was still on the team at that point. They didn't think they needed a QB. The dog fighting stuff happened after the draft.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 02:45 PM
Which is why JaMarcus Russell was drafted in the 4th round.

Russell did more than Sanchez. And he has still been a disappointment. Here is some history on Russell.

Sophomore season

By the fall 2005 season, Russell was the undisputed starting quarterback for his team. He led LSU to a 10-1 regular season record, the SEC Western Division title, and a top five ranking going into the SEC Championship Game. He also improved statistically, completing 60 percent of his passes for 2,443 yards and 15 touchdowns. Russell received an honorable mention on the AP's All-SEC Team.

Russell led the Tigers to two dramatic come-from-behind wins in the regular season. The first came on a 39 yard pass to Early Doucet on 4th down in the final minute of the game, as the Tigers defeated Arizona State 35-31. Later in the season, LSU defeated a then-undefeated Alabama team 16-13 when Russell completed a 14 yard touchdown to Dwayne Bowe in overtime for the win.

Russell injured his shoulder in a loss to Georgia in the SEC Championship Game, and missed the team's bowl game. Backup quarterback Matt Flynn replaced Russell for the Peach Bowl against Miami, and the Tigers won the game 40-3.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Russell housed around a dozen evacuees who had fled the flooding in New Orleans, including New Orleans singer Fats Domino, in his off-campus apartment.

Junior season

Russell was the starting quarterback again at LSU in 2006, beating out backup Matt Flynn and highly-touted redshirt freshman Ryan Perrilloux. Before the season began, he changed his jersey number from 4 to 2. He had a productive 2006 regular season, leading the Tigers to a 10-2 record and a BCS Sugar Bowl berth. He threw for 2,797 yards, 26 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. He was second in the SEC with 2,923 yards from scrimmage. Russell won the SEC Offensive Player of the Week award three times during the regular season.

A memorable performance of the 2006 season came against Tennessee. In spite of throwing three interceptions (including one returned for a touchdown), he led LSU on a come-from-behind, 15-play, 80-yard drive in the final minutes of the game. The drive ended with a four-yard touchdown pass to Early Doucet with less than 10 seconds left in the game, and the Tigers defeated Tennessee 28-24. Earlier in the drive, Russell and Doucet also connected for a first down on a 4th and 8 situation. In the final game of his junior year, the Allstate Sugar Bowl, Russell accumulated over 350 yards of passing and rushing and scored 3 TDs, leading to the Tigers 4114 win over Notre Dame. He was also named the Sugar Bowl's MVP.

At the end of the 2006 season, Russell was named to the all-SEC first team, ahead of Kentucky's Andre Woodson and Florida's Chris Leak. In addition, he was named an honorable mention All-American by Sports Illustrated.

chiefzilla1501
02-03-2009, 02:49 PM
Answers

They're not answers. The common logic on this board is that if you do not have a franchise QB, you absolutely, positively do not pass up on one in the draft. And yet, we have teams passing on a QB to take a DE, RBs, WRs, and LTs.

Again, maybe it's because teams don't overrate QBs the way amateur draftniks do.

Frosty
02-03-2009, 02:53 PM
They're not answers. The common logic on this board is that if you do not have a franchise QB, you absolutely, positively do not pass up on one in the draft. And yet, we have teams passing on a QB to take a DE, RBs, WRs, and LTs.

Again, maybe it's because teams don't overrate QBs the way amateur draftniks do.

How many of the coaches that passed on Quinn in your list are still employed by those teams?

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 02:53 PM
Yeah....and how many fucking teams out there draft OTs in the 1st round....in back to back years? Or how many teams draft a LB in the top 3 every year?

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 02:54 PM
How many of the coaches that passed on Quinn in your list are still employed by those teams?

The Vikings.

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 02:54 PM
They're not answers. The common logic on this board is that if you do not have a franchise QB, you absolutely, positively do not pass up on one in the draft. And yet, we have teams passing on a QB to take a DE, RBs, WRs, and LTs.

Again, maybe it's because teams don't overrate QBs the way amateur draftniks do.

How many of those teams that passed one up have won a SB without a franchise QB? None. If you don't have a franchise QB, you do take the gamble.
And we don't have one. We're not overrating them. They are the most important players you can draft. Period. And these two are both projected as top 5 picks. So how are we overrating them?

Frosty
02-03-2009, 02:56 PM
The Vikings.

Who used a high draft pick on what they thought was a franchise QB.

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 02:57 PM
The Vikings.

Not for long. After another year of Tarvaris Jackson, Childress will be gone.

JASONSAUTO
02-03-2009, 03:03 PM
How many of the coaches that passed on Quinn in your list are still employed by those teams?

IMO most coaches dont get fired over draft picks

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 03:08 PM
IMO most coaches dont get fired over draft picks

No they get fired because their teams suck w/o a franchise QB.

ChiefRon
02-03-2009, 03:25 PM
No they get fired because their teams suck w/o a franchise QB.

QFT

Micjones
02-03-2009, 03:28 PM
The QB position needs to be addressed one way or another.
Drafting one might make the most sense...
Unless we can come up with a way to get Cassel away from New England without mortgaging the franchise.

chiefzilla1501
02-03-2009, 03:32 PM
It just goes to show that people will make up any argument they want to make their point work.

And so, when I make a comment that GMs in the top 10 are usually stupid and retarded because they rely exclusively on the draft chart, I hear people say that "they are NFL GMs, you are not. Therefore, not all GMs are stupid." But when I make the comment that a bunch of GMs passed up on a franchise QB, of course, it's because those GMS are stupid and since have been fired.

It's amazing to me that nobody here concedes taht maybe, JUST MAYBE, Brady Quinn fell in the draft because he wasn't evaluated nearly as high as everyone claimed he should have been taken. Just like Derrick Johnson wasn't as good as he was hyped up to be on some boards. Just like guys every year who get rated in the top 10 and then fall out of the first round. It happens every year.

Folks, I like Mark Sanchez, but he's not a slam dunk. And I promise you that there will be a lot of people outside of Kansas City that will say the same thing. And the argument you will hear most is that he went into the NFL one year too soon.

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2009, 03:37 PM
Folks, I like Mark Sanchez, but he's not a slam dunk. And I promise you that there will be a lot of people outside of Kansas City that will say the same thing. And the argument you will hear most is that he went into the NFL one year too soon.


So? Big fucking deal?

How in your RIGHT MIND could you advocate passing on him because he's not a "slam dunk"? That's just plain stupid.

The ONLY "slam dunk" IMO that EVER entered the draft was Peyton Manning.

And where was he drafted again?

Oh yeah. First overall.

ChiefsCountry
02-03-2009, 03:51 PM
Sorry, but you don't let a franchise QB slip that far. The draftniks had Quinn pegged as a top 3 pick, and tons of teams with an unstable QB situation passed on him. But if you actually paid attention, there were lots of experts who were very concerned about Quinn because he was very inaccurate as a college player and that he missed way too many easy throws at Notre Dame that he would never get away with in the pros.

The freaking league office thought he would be a top 5 pick as well or they wouldnt have invited him to New York for the draft. It wasnt just the draftniks.

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 04:05 PM
So? Big ****ing deal?

How in your RIGHT MIND could you advocate passing on him because he's not a "slam dunk"? That's just plain stupid.

The ONLY "slam dunk" IMO that EVER entered the draft was Peyton Manning.

And where was he drafted again?

Oh yeah. First overall.

When are people going to figure this out?

NO QB is slam dunk. NONE. ZERO. NATTA. There's not one. Like you said, Peyton was the closest, but even he wasn't a guaranteed thing. They do not exist.

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 04:08 PM
On that note, there isn't FA QB who is a slam dunk either.

kcbubb
02-03-2009, 04:15 PM
It just goes to show that people will make up any argument they want to make their point work.

And so, when I make a comment that GMs in the top 10 are usually stupid and retarded because they rely exclusively on the draft chart, I hear people say that "they are NFL GMs, you are not. Therefore, not all GMs are stupid." But when I make the comment that a bunch of GMs passed up on a franchise QB, of course, it's because those GMS are stupid and since have been fired.

It's amazing to me that nobody here concedes taht maybe, JUST MAYBE, Brady Quinn fell in the draft because he wasn't evaluated nearly as high as everyone claimed he should have been taken. Just like Derrick Johnson wasn't as good as he was hyped up to be on some boards. Just like guys every year who get rated in the top 10 and then fall out of the first round. It happens every year.

Folks, I like Mark Sanchez, but he's not a slam dunk. And I promise you that there will be a lot of people outside of Kansas City that will say the same thing. And the argument you will hear most is that he went into the NFL one year too soon.

Most of these guys would rather have Mark Sanchez than Matt Cassel and 5 picks. They aren't being rational. Matt Cassel and the Patriots had the 5th ranked offense last year. With that many picks, you could build an offense similar to the Pats. It's all about the QB, less about the team.

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 04:16 PM
How are you going to get Matt Cassel and 5 picks?

Pestilence
02-03-2009, 04:17 PM
And don't say trade down.

beach tribe
02-03-2009, 04:19 PM
Most of these guys would rather have Mark Sanchez than Matt Cassel and 5 picks. They aren't being rational. Matt Cassel and the Patriots had the 5th ranked offense last year. With that many picks, you could build an offense similar to the Pats. It's all about the QB, less about the team.

BS. No one here would say that if we were getting 5 picks. We won't be getting ANY picks, we will be GIVING UP picks. So what the hell are you talking about?

kstater
02-03-2009, 04:36 PM
How are you going to get Matt Cassel and 5 picks?

In crazy la la land of course.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-03-2009, 04:39 PM
Who used a high draft pick on what they thought was a franchise QB.

The 64th pick ain't exactly an uber-high selection.

Frosty
02-03-2009, 04:49 PM
The 64th pick ain't exactly an uber-high selection.

Not uber-high, no. However, I don't think anyone outside of Carl Peterson considers a 2nd round pick a throwaway pick.