PDA

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


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Mecca
02-03-2009, 06:02 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.

Make up any argument...

You mean like saying the draft chart is dumb?

Mecca
02-03-2009, 06:05 PM
Here read..

http://www.draftcountdown.com/blog/Wright-Stuff-Blog.php

• Of all the underclassmen who came out this year Mark Sanchez may have been the biggest surprise. I just assumed that with only one year of starting experience and Pete Carroll's uncanny ability to keep top prospects in school Sanchez would consider the pros but ultimately be playing for the Trojans in 2009. However, now that Sanchez is officially a part of this draft it's time to determine where he will come off the board.

Right now there is a wide range of opinions, with one camp that maintains he will be a Top 3 overall pick and another that thinks he may drop into the late teens or early twenties. First of all let's make one thing clear: A worst-case scenario for Sanchez is #22 to Minnesota, and that is assuming he somehow gets past a half dozen other quarterback needy teams such as the Jets, the Bears, the Buccaneers and the Lions. A best-case scenario would probably be #3 overall to Kansas City and I really have a hard time envisioning him getting past San Francisco at #10. New Head Coach Mike Singletary hasn't exactly given incumbent Shaun Hill a ringing endorsement and after missing out on a chance to draft Matt Leinart with the #1 overall pick in 2005 this could be their opportunity to bring in the local kid to be the face of the franchise. Granted there are some who feel Sanchez could give Matthew Stafford a run for his money and put himself in contention to be the #1 overall pick but personally I don't buy that. The case can be made that Sanchez has as much long-term upside as Stafford but at this point I’d be hard-pressed to give him an edge over Stafford in any single category. With that said once Stafford comes off the board Sanchez is going to become a very hot commodity and don't be surprised if some of the teams I mentioned above attempt to trade up for him. With this being such a weak crop of quarterbacks and next year not looking much better Sanchez might represent the last chance for teams to get a premier young, dare I say ... franchise, signal caller that they can build around.

There is no question that Sanchez would have benefited from another year in college but it’s hard to fault the kid for wanting to strike while the iron is hot. After an outstanding performance in the Rose Bowl Sanchez left scouts with a very favorable final impression and with Sam Bradford opting to go back to school there was an opening for him to slide right in as the #2 quarterback prospect in this draft. It will be very interesting to see just how high Sanchez goes in round one but I have a good feeling it will be a lot closer to #3 than #22.

ChiefsCountry
02-03-2009, 06:06 PM
Make up any argument...

You mean like saying the draft chart is dumb?

I think we have found this year's findthedr

Mecca
02-03-2009, 06:13 PM
I think we have found this year's findthedr

They'd fit in great over at the coalition him and frankie and como, everyone over there wants to draft Crabtree and thinks Tyler Thigpen is the franchise QB...

It's like a retard flocking point.

Chiefnj2
02-03-2009, 06:50 PM
Here read..

http://www.draftcountdown.com/blog/Wright-Stuff-Blog.php

Of all the underclassmen who came out this year .... 22.

Do you agree with Wright that Freeman is the 25th best player in the draft and is a first round QB?

Mecca
02-03-2009, 07:26 PM
Do you agree with Wright that Freeman is the 25th best player in the draft and is a first round QB?

No not personally but Freeman is a scouts dream guy so he'll be high...and this idea that he'll last to the 2nd round is a myth. So many teams need QB's the idea that he's going to get past teams like the Jets and Vikings is laughable.

Dicky McElephant
02-03-2009, 07:46 PM
I could see the Vikings taking him.

DaneMcCloud
02-03-2009, 08:00 PM
I could see the Vikings taking him.

And then they'll have the trifecta: Two dumb quarterbacks to go along with their stupid head coach.

ChiefRon
02-03-2009, 08:03 PM
Here read..

http://www.draftcountdown.com/blog/Wright-Stuff-Blog.php

Of all the underclassmen who came out this year Mark Sanchez may have been the biggest surprise. I just assumed that with only one year of starting experience and Pete Carroll's uncanny ability to keep top prospects in school Sanchez would consider the pros but ultimately be playing for the Trojans in 2009. However, now that Sanchez is officially a part of this draft it's time to determine where he will come off the board.

Right now there is a wide range of opinions, with one camp that maintains he will be a Top 3 overall pick and another that thinks he may drop into the late teens or early twenties. First of all let's make one thing clear: A worst-case scenario for Sanchez is #22 to Minnesota, and that is assuming he somehow gets past a half dozen other quarterback needy teams such as the Jets, the Bears, the Buccaneers and the Lions. A best-case scenario would probably be #3 overall to Kansas City and I really have a hard time envisioning him getting past San Francisco at #10. New Head Coach Mike Singletary hasn't exactly given incumbent Shaun Hill a ringing endorsement and after missing out on a chance to draft Matt Leinart with the #1 overall pick in 2005 this could be their opportunity to bring in the local kid to be the face of the franchise. Granted there are some who feel Sanchez could give Matthew Stafford a run for his money and put himself in contention to be the #1 overall pick but personally I don't buy that. The case can be made that Sanchez has as much long-term upside as Stafford but at this point Id be hard-pressed to give him an edge over Stafford in any single category. With that said once Stafford comes off the board Sanchez is going to become a very hot commodity and don't be surprised if some of the teams I mentioned above attempt to trade up for him. With this being such a weak crop of quarterbacks and next year not looking much better Sanchez might represent the last chance for teams to get a premier young, dare I say ... franchise, signal caller that they can build around.

There is no question that Sanchez would have benefited from another year in college but its hard to fault the kid for wanting to strike while the iron is hot. After an outstanding performance in the Rose Bowl Sanchez left scouts with a very favorable final impression and with Sam Bradford opting to go back to school there was an opening for him to slide right in as the #2 quarterback prospect in this draft. It will be very interesting to see just how high Sanchez goes in round one but I have a good feeling it will be a lot closer to #3 than #22.

Something else that I've heard some folks say that excites me more about this prospect than anything quoted above is the fact of his work ethic and passion for the game. He wants to be the best. He eats, sleeps, and breathes football.

And Pete Carroll said he might end up being better than Carson Palmer.

Hey, that's enough for me, I actually hope he falls to us @ #3. Don't let the Rams go crazy on us and trade out of the spot...

Crush
02-03-2009, 08:22 PM
The reason Quinn fell to #22 was the fact that Cam Cameron pulled out the WTF? Card and drafted Ted Ginn at #9. After that, the Dolphins went 1-15 and Cameron was thrown out on his ass.

Stafford or Sanchez will do as we watch Pioli actually build a franchise, instead of a Carl Peterson-approved "9-7 cocktease." Then the ghost of Todd Blackledge's career can finally be put to rest. Damn it Steadman!!! :cuss:

Danman
02-04-2009, 06:29 AM
If Sanchez is Pioli's #1 guy, don't be surprised if KC trades up to get him, not down. I think with Pioli you'll never know what he's thinking till you see it played out. In the same thought, if Curry or Rey Rey is his #1 - he'll probably try and trade down to 5-10.

chiefzilla1501
02-04-2009, 08:22 AM
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.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

I've said many times that you only pick Sanchez if you believe he is without a doubt a top 5 pick. And right now, there is no guarantee that he will grade that highly. So when I say he's not a slam dunk, I'm saying that as of right now, there is no guarantee that he will grade high enough to be a top 5 pick.

chiefzilla1501
02-04-2009, 08:24 AM
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.

I'd love to have 5 picks too, but that's not going to happen. Nobody's going to give up that much to move to our spot.

Sam Hall
02-04-2009, 08:26 AM
let it go, people

chiefzilla1501
02-04-2009, 08:44 AM
Make up any argument...

You mean like saying the draft chart is dumb?

I don't understand what's so complicated about this and why I get so much shit for this. A house that was selling for $250,000 three years ago, would you pay $250,000 for that house today? Of course you wouldn't--that house is probably worth about $150,000-$200,000 today. If that's the way I negotiate, I have a great house for you to buy--I would love to sell it to you.

And yet, NFL GMs have standardized the price that they believe every pick is worth from year to year, even though some draft classes are graded as better than others. And so, Calvin Johnson carries the same trade value as Chris Long. I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend. You negotiate trade value based on the value of the players left on the board and that value should be different from year to year. And if you are not hot and heavy over anyone you have left, then you have to lower your trade value a bit to trade out of the pick.

When I say the trade chart is dumb, I am saying that it should be used as a guide, but most teams use it as a bible and will not accept any trade unless it strictly matches the chart. And for the record, I have said many times that the trade chart isn't horribly wrong, but in the top 3, the picks are grossly overvalued. That is a stance that most of you agree with, and yet are fighting me tooth and nail over. I'm not saying you hose yourself, but you have to be willing to show teams that you're willing to negotiate, even if that means you don't get full value from the draft chart. Teams are way too reluctant to do that and often times reluctantly reach for a player (i.e. Rams and Chris Long) or take a player they're not excited about (i.e. Alex Smith and the 49ers).

kcbubb
02-04-2009, 08:57 AM
I'd love to have 5 picks too, but that's not going to happen. Nobody's going to give up that much to move to our spot.

I agree. But most people on this board would rather have Sanchez than all those picks. My point is they aren't rational about the value of Sanchez. I understand that the QB is the most important position on the field, but a QB can only be as good as the team as he plays on.

milkman
02-04-2009, 09:05 AM
I agree. But most people on this board would rather have Sanchez than all those picks. My point is they aren't rational about the value of Sanchez. I understand that the QB is the most important position on the field, but a QB can only be as good as the team as he plays on.

And, of course, a team can not possibly build a team around a QB.

chiefzilla1501
02-04-2009, 09:07 AM
I don't understand what's so complicated about this and why I get so much shit for this. A house that was selling for $250,000 three years ago, would you pay $250,000 for that house today? Of course you wouldn't--that house is probably worth about $150,000-$200,000 today. If that's the way I negotiate, I have a great house for you to buy--I would love to sell it to you.

And yet, NFL GMs have standardized the price that they believe every pick is worth from year to year, even though some draft classes are graded as better than others. And so, Calvin Johnson carries the same trade value as Chris Long. I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend. You negotiate trade value based on the value of the players left on the board and that value should be different from year to year. And if you are not hot and heavy over anyone you have left, then you have to lower your trade value a bit to trade out of the pick.

When I say the trade chart is dumb, I am saying that it should be used as a guide, but most teams use it as a bible and will not accept any trade unless it strictly matches the chart. And for the record, I have said many times that the trade chart isn't horribly wrong, but in the top 3, the picks are grossly overvalued. That is a stance that most of you agree with, and yet are fighting me tooth and nail over. I'm not saying you hose yourself, but you have to be willing to show teams that you're willing to negotiate, even if that means you don't get full value from the draft chart. Teams are way too reluctant to do that and often times reluctantly reach for a player (i.e. Rams and Chris Long) or take a player they're not excited about (i.e. Alex Smith and the 49ers).

Anyway, I apologize... I don't want to launch into these long-winded re-explanations, but when people say the logic is dumb and unfounded, and when that point continues to pop up even when it is has no relevance to the thread, I'm going to react. You may not agree with the argument, but there's plenty of logic behind it. It's not an argument completely out of left field and it's not nearly the extreme "completely throw away the chart" argument people are exaggerating it to be.

RustShack
02-04-2009, 09:47 AM
I agree. But most people on this board would rather have Sanchez than all those picks. My point is they aren't rational about the value of Sanchez. I understand that the QB is the most important position on the field, but a QB can only be as good as the team as he plays on.

If we trade down then we wouldn't be able to get Stafford or Sanchez tool bag. Teams don't just pass on franchise QB's because some dumbass who doesn't know shit about prospects doesn't like a guy because of where Mel Kiper has him ranked.

ChiefRon
02-04-2009, 09:59 AM
Since when do you pass on a franchise QB because you don't have a running game?

Who uses that logic anyway?

Chiefnj2
02-04-2009, 10:04 AM
If you have a chance to take a franchise QB you do so. The question is whether or not Pioli will feel like Sanchez is a franchise QB. A lot of amateur web draft gurus think he is worth the #3 pick, the NFL advisory committee didn't think as highly of him. I don't happen to think Pioli will take him, but if he does then I hope the kid can develop.

kcbubb
02-04-2009, 10:25 AM
If we trade down then we wouldn't be able to get Stafford or Sanchez tool bag. Teams don't just pass on franchise QB's because some dumbass who doesn't know shit about prospects doesn't like a guy because of where Mel Kiper has him ranked.

Again... You are missing my point. my point was not pass the QB because of the lack of running game. My point is that using Ryan and Flacco as a reason to take Sanchez is incorrect. Just because those players have been successful with their teams doesn't mean that they would have been with us. Nor does it mean that Sanchez will be a franchise QB with the Chiefs. It is a different situation. you have to evaluate it entirely in and of itself. You are also wrong about Kiper. Kiper has Sanchez ranked pretty high. He has the Chiefs selecting him.

milkman
02-04-2009, 10:31 AM
Again... You are missing my point. my point was not pass the QB because of the lack of running game. My point is that using Ryan and Flacco as a reason to take Sanchez is incorrect. Just because those players have been successful with their teams doesn't mean that they would have been with us. Nor does it mean that Sanchez will be a franchise QB with the Chiefs. It is a different situation. you have to evaluate it entirely in and of itself. You are also wrong about Kiper. Kiper has Sanchez ranked pretty high. He has the Chiefs selecting him.

You draft a QB based solely on his potential.

If you feel that he can not succeed with the talent, or lack thereof, in place around him, you let him sit and learn for a year while you upgrade the talent.

You don't pass on a potential franchise QB because the rest of your team sucks.

ChiefRon
02-04-2009, 10:42 AM
In fact, if your team sucks, it's probably because you don't have a franchise QB.

Also, who said we expect him to take us to the playoffs next year like Ryan/Flacco? And if he can't, we should pass on him? Is that your angle?

We're building this thing from the ground up, the franchise QB pick would be an investment for the next 10+ years hopefully, not just because it would be the pick with the most immediate impact...

Coogs
02-04-2009, 10:45 AM
You draft a QB based solely on his potential.

If you feel that he can not succeed with the talent, or lack thereof, in place around him, you let him sit and learn for a year while you upgrade the talent.

You don't pass on a potential franchise QB because the rest of your team sucks.

Exactly! :thumb:

ChiefsCountry
02-04-2009, 11:08 AM
Can you imagine being on Cowboys Planet in 1989? Hey we cant take Aikman, we got Steve Peuller. We need defense - Derrick Thomas is the way to go. Screw QB we got to take Tony Mandrich it all starts up front.

RustShack
02-04-2009, 11:11 AM
Again... You are missing my point. my point was not pass the QB because of the lack of running game. My point is that using Ryan and Flacco as a reason to take Sanchez is incorrect. Just because those players have been successful with their teams doesn't mean that they would have been with us. Nor does it mean that Sanchez will be a franchise QB with the Chiefs. It is a different situation. you have to evaluate it entirely in and of itself. You are also wrong about Kiper. Kiper has Sanchez ranked pretty high. He has the Chiefs selecting him.

Your a fucking idiot if you expect any rookie QB to be that successful right off the bat.

beach tribe
02-04-2009, 11:45 AM
Again... You are missing my point. my point was not pass the QB because of the lack of running game. My point is that using Ryan and Flacco as a reason to take Sanchez is incorrect. Just because those players have been successful with their teams doesn't mean that they would have been with us. Nor does it mean that Sanchez will be a franchise QB with the Chiefs. It is a different situation. you have to evaluate it entirely in and of itself. You are also wrong about Kiper. Kiper has Sanchez ranked pretty high. He has the Chiefs selecting him.

God we get it. You think we should pass on a QB, which is absolutely ignorant. Let's build the team around Thigpen then. A guy who can't even run a pro-style offense.

ChiefRon
02-04-2009, 11:57 AM
God we get it. You think we should pass on a QB, which is absolutely ignorant. Let's build the team around Thigpen then. A guy who can't even run a pro-style offense.

But why? To try to make a push for the playoffs or something?

We're thinking long-term rebuilding, and some fans are thinking quick turnaround, a la Atlanta/Miami.

RustShack
02-04-2009, 11:58 AM
But why? To try to make a push for the playoffs or something?

We're thinking long-term rebuilding, and some fans are thinking quick turnaround, a la Atlanta/Miami.

Those quick turn around guys are probably still crying that Carl left them.