PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 10:52 AM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

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

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

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 10:52 AM
:spock::shake:


STFU

King_Chief_Fan
01-29-2009, 10:53 AM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

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

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

oh oh, you are going to get it now

chiefs1111
01-29-2009, 10:53 AM
:banghead:

blueballs
01-29-2009, 10:55 AM
this going to be like wearing a Buccaneers jersey
to a Raider home game

Planetman
01-29-2009, 10:55 AM
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8522/hangingwb8.gif

the Talking Can
01-29-2009, 10:57 AM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

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

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

go kill yourself... and video tape it so I can watch it over and over

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 10:58 AM
First off before the bashing begins.......

Exactly WHO should we select with the #3 pick.

My guess....he either says Curry or Orakpo.

Brock
01-29-2009, 10:59 AM
If they didn't draft a QB, there isn't going to be any free agent QB any better than what they already have.

jspchief
01-29-2009, 11:01 AM
Fitzpatrick? Seriously?

beach tribe
01-29-2009, 11:04 AM
Fitzpatrick+You=Tard

Thigpen is better than Fitzpatrick.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 11:09 AM
First off before the bashing begins.......

Exactly WHO should we select with the #3 pick.

My guess....he either says Curry or Orakpo.

I would recommend trading down. I like several of the DEs. I like Everette Brown in the middle of the first. I think he is a good value pick there. I like Micheal Johnson in the second or late first. I think he will blow the combine up. I also like Maualuga in the middle of the first. I think if the Chiefs could move down to the 9-15 pick range and get a few pics that would be the best option for the Chiefs. There is value at DE there.

Brock
01-29-2009, 11:17 AM
I would recommend trading down. I like several of the DEs. I like Everette Brown in the middle of the first. I think he is a good value pick there. I like Micheal Johnson in the second or late first. I think he will blow the combine up. I also like Maualuga in the middle of the first. I think if the Chiefs could move down to the 9-15 pick range and get a few pics that would be the best option for the Chiefs. There is value at DE there.

What if they couldn't move down?

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 11:18 AM
What if they couldn't move down?

We could probably give up an extra pick or two for the right to move down.

Fritz88
01-29-2009, 11:18 AM
Fitzpatrick. WTF.

I agree that we should concentrate on D. But to go for Fitzpatrick!!!

We should keep Thigpen and make him a starter.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:18 AM
I would recommend trading down. I like several of the DEs. I like Everette Brown in the middle of the first. I think he is a good value pick there. I like Micheal Johnson in the second or late first. I think he will blow the combine up. I also like Maualuga in the middle of the first. I think if the Chiefs could move down to the 9-15 pick range and get a few pics that would be the best option for the Chiefs. There is value at DE there.

No trading down....who would you take?

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 11:19 AM
No trading down....who would you take?

Um. Did you read his entire post?

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:19 AM
We HAVE to fucking move down.

We could probably give up an extra pick or two for the right to move down.

We don't HAVE to do shit.

Where do these people get this idea that it's SOOOOOO fucking easy to trade down out of the top 3. Teams will have to give up a lot of picks to move up...and there has to be someone there who's worth it to them.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:20 AM
Um. Did you read his entire post?

Yes I did....and no where in his entire post did he state who he would take at 3 if we couldn't trade down.

Brock
01-29-2009, 11:20 AM
Um. Did you read his entire post?

I did, and he didn't address it.

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 11:20 AM
We don't HAVE to do shit.

Where do these people get this idea that it's SOOOOOO ****ing easy to trade down out of the top 3. Teams will have to give up a lot of picks to move up...and there has to be someone there who's worth it to them.

Warning:

Sometimes posts contain sarcasm. Proceed with caution.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:21 AM
Warning:

Sometimes posts contain sarcasm. Proceed with caution.

It's early....give me a break.

Coogs
01-29-2009, 11:21 AM
We could probably give up an extra pick or two for the right to move down.

:LOL:

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 11:22 AM
Yes I did....and no where in his entire post did he state who he would take at 3 if we couldn't trade down.

I did, and he didn't address it.

Many apologies good (but never True) fans. It was in fact I who misread the lad's post. That syntax is sometimes a motherfucker.

kstater
01-29-2009, 11:22 AM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

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

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

Dumbass, with a capital D.

Brock
01-29-2009, 11:22 AM
We could probably give up an extra pick or two for the right to move down.

Maybe if we throw in Larry Johnson.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 11:22 AM
If they didn't draft a QB, there isn't going to be any free agent QB any better than what they already have.

Any QB that we draft may not be better than what we have. If you draft a QB, you have to develop them. If you sign a young free agent like Cassell or Fitzpatrick or keep Thigpen, you still have to develop them. It's a risk either way.

tyton75
01-29-2009, 11:22 AM
I pretty much agree with him.. other than Fitzpatrick.. but another FA QB for competition.. etc..

and i would like us to move down and get more picks.. but if we cant'... BPA!

which looks to be an OT

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 11:24 AM
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i145/fosters211/the%20pawz%20cauze%20photos/ScaredPooplesscover.jpg

HemiEd
01-29-2009, 11:24 AM
:popcorn::popcorn:

Brock
01-29-2009, 11:25 AM
Any QB that we draft may not be better than what we have. If you draft a QB, you have to develop them. If you sign a young free agent like Cassell or Fitzpatrick or keep Thigpen, you still have to develop them. It's a risk either way.

With the major difference in upside. None of those guys is likely to be a huge difference maker, whereas Stafford or Sanchez just might be.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:25 AM
I pretty much agree with him.. other than Fitzpatrick.. but another FA QB for competition.. etc..

and i would like us to move down and get more picks.. but if we cant'... BPA!

which looks to be an OT

The dreaded OT post. This will not end well. :cuss:

Frosty
01-29-2009, 11:27 AM
The only defense in the league that was worse than the Chiefs was the 0-16 Detroit Lions. The Chiefs need, at a minimum, three new starters on defense (2 LB's & DE) if we stay in the 4-3. The Chiefs need defensive talent.

You do know there is free agency and other draft picks, right?

The difference between Orakpo or Curry and what you can get in the second/third isn't very great. The difference between Stafford/Sanchez and Bomar or (snort) Fitzpatrick is f'ing huge.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 11:27 AM
Fitzpatrick. WTF.

I agree that we should concentrate on D. But to go for Fitzpatrick!!!

We should keep Thigpen and make him a starter.

The reason for signing Fitzpatrick is the lack of QB talent in this draft. Fitzpatrick is young and inexperienced but he has shown that he has ability to lead a team. He could compete with Thigpen. And the competition should make both of them better players.

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 11:28 AM
which looks to be an OT

I've also heard that guards sometimes compare favorably to QB's.

If you can find a guard who goes to 13 Pro-Bowls, you'd need a QB who goes to 11 to get equal value.

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 11:29 AM
Fitzpatrick is young and inexperienced but he has shown that he has ability to lead a team.

Out of curiosity, what did he lead them to?

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:30 AM
The reason for signing Fitzpatrick is the lack of QB talent in this draft. Fitzpatrick is young and inexperienced but he has shown that he has ability to lead a team. He could compete with Thigpen. And the competition should make both of them better players.

Lack of QB talent? You can't be fucking serious. We have a shot to get either Stafford or Sanchez and you want to pass on them because of Fitzpatrick and Thigpen? The stupidity of some people ceases to amaze me.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 11:31 AM
With the major difference in upside. None of those guys is likely to be a huge difference maker, whereas Stafford or Sanchez just might be.

You could say the same with Everette Brown. I think the Chargers missed Merriman this season.

The Chargers began to change as a team when they selected Merriman. I don't want to be like the 49ers and select the next Alex Smith and pass on Merriman. The Chiefs should trade down and spread the risk over several players.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:32 AM
You could say the same with Everette Brown. I think the Chargers missed Merriman this season.

The Chargers began to change as a team when they selected Merriman. I don't want to be like the 49ers and select the next Alex Smith and pass on Merriman. The Chiefs should trade down and spread the risk over several players.

Eliminate trading down because the chance that it happens is slim to none.

Coogs
01-29-2009, 11:35 AM
You could say the same with Everette Brown. I think the Chargers missed Merriman this season.

The Chargers began to change as a team when they selected Merriman. I don't want to be like the 49ers and select the next Alex Smith and pass on Merriman. The Chiefs should trade down and spread the risk over several players.

Get the QB this year. Get some O-line and LB's with some other picks. Get the DE next year when some very good DE's will be in the draft early... which is in all likelyhood where we will be picking again.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2010.php

Or Spikes or Mays for that matter.

PhillyChiefFan
01-29-2009, 11:36 AM
Eliminate trading down because the chance that it happens is slim to none.

Truth, there are no sure fire prospects this year. Teams won't be clammering to get ahold of a Matt Ryan, Reggie Bush, DeMarcus Ware type players this year.

Sanchez is inexperienced, and even Stafford has some questions.

Crush
01-29-2009, 11:37 AM
:Lin:

jspchief
01-29-2009, 11:39 AM
Truth, there are no sure fire prospects this year. Teams won't be clammering to get ahold of a Matt Ryan, Reggie Bush, DeMarcus Ware type players this year.

Sanchez is inexperienced, and even Stafford has some questions.Was anyone "clammering" to get Matt Ryan last year?

Deberg_1990
01-29-2009, 11:41 AM
Truth, there are no sure fire prospects this year. Teams won't be clammering to get ahold of a Matt Ryan,


Were you around last year? Everyone was saying the same stuff last year about Ryan and Flacco.

"We cant take a QB!!" "On noes!!" "its just too risky!!"

"These guys are not good enough to be first round picks!!!"

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 11:41 AM
What if they couldn't move down?

They should be able to move down. Several teams are in need of a wide receiver and I don't see Crabtree lasting #5. The 49ers at pick #10 need both a wideout and possibly a QB. Guess who there leading receiver was last year?

BigCatDaddy
01-29-2009, 11:44 AM
Sanchez at 3 just doesn't make sense. The Falcons took Ryan at 3 last year and this year we are thinking of taking Sanchez at 3? We need to address the position, but maybe this just isn't the year to do it in round 1. If Stafford falls go for it, but let's not reach for a QB here. Rome wasn't built in a day, there will be other opportunities.

R&GHomer
01-29-2009, 11:46 AM
Put the crack pipe down and back away from the keyboard.

PhillyChiefFan
01-29-2009, 11:48 AM
Sanchez at 3 just doesn't make sense. The Falcons took Ryan at 3 last year and this year we are thinking of taking Sanchez at 3? We need to address the position, but maybe this just isn't the year to do it in round 1. If Stafford falls go for it, but let's not reach for a QB here. Rome wasn't built in a day, there will be other opportunities.

I completely agree with you.

I'm not convinced of Sanchez ( I know I'll get blasted for this, but what the hell)

I'd take Stafford, if no Stafford...take a QB but in the 3rd or 4th round.

I just don't see sticking with Sanchez at #3.

I trust Pioli and his influence, if he doesn't believe completely in the player, I dont' think he will allow it with or without HC support.

jspchief
01-29-2009, 11:48 AM
They should be able to move down. Several teams are in need of a wide receiver and I don't see Crabtree lasting #5. The 49ers at pick #10 need both a wideout and possibly a QB. Guess who there leading receiver was last year?The cost of moving up to #3 is extreme. I just don't feel that Crabtree (or anyone else in this draft) is a guy that a team will mortgage their future for.

PhillyChiefFan
01-29-2009, 11:49 AM
Am I just missing something with Sanchez?

BTW, I'm a diehard PSU fan and yes I did see what he did to a good PSU defense in the Rose Bowl.

Was he that good throughout the rest of the season? Honest question.

jspchief
01-29-2009, 11:51 AM
Am I just missing something with Sanchez?

BTW, I'm a diehard PSU fan and yes I did see what he did to a good PSU defense in the Rose Bowl.

Was he that good throughout the rest of the season? Honest question.Based on his body of work, he's good. The one knock is that his body of work consists of a single season, surrounded by a lot of talent.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:53 AM
Based on his body of work, he's good. The one knock is that his body of work consists of a single season, surrounded by a lot of talent.

Name the talent on USC's offense.

BigCatDaddy
01-29-2009, 11:55 AM
I completely agree with you.

I'm not convinced of Sanchez ( I know I'll get blasted for this, but what the hell)

I'd take Stafford, if no Stafford...take a QB but in the 3rd or 4th round.

I just don't see sticking with Sanchez at #3.

I trust Pioli and his influence, if he doesn't believe completely in the player, I dont' think he will allow it with or without HC support.

The OP has a valid point, but with the Fitzpatrick remark he lost cred with that point.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 11:55 AM
The OP has a valid point, but with the Fitzpatrick remark he lost cred with that point.

What fucking valid point was that? That he's terrified to draft a QB this year just like half the board is?

Deberg_1990
01-29-2009, 11:56 AM
That he's terrified to draft a QB ANY year just like half the board is?


FYP

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 11:56 AM
Lack of QB talent? You can't be ****ing serious. We have a shot to get either Stafford or Sanchez and you want to pass on them because of Fitzpatrick and Thigpen? The stupidity of some people ceases to amaze me.

You could make the same argument for trading down, getting more picks and selecting someone like Everette Brown. You would be passing on a DE with the talent of Brown. He could end being a player like Shawn Merriman. It's a risk either way. No one knows.

The Chiefs had the #13 ranked defense in 2007. They had an old secondary in Ty Law and Surtain. They lost Jared Allen last season. You could make the argument that the Chiefs could have a #13 defense again next season if they hit the bulls eye and drafted a big time defensive end that could replace Jared Allen with the upgrades in the secondary(Carr, Flowers, Leggett).

Deberg_1990
01-29-2009, 11:59 AM
You could make the same argument for trading down, getting more picks and selecting someone like Everette Brown. You would be passing on a DE with the talent of Brown. He could end being a player like Shawn Merriman. It's a risk either way. No one knows.

The Chiefs had the #13 ranked defense in 2007. They had an old secondary in Ty Law and Surtain. They lost Jared Allen last season. You could make the argument that the Chiefs could have a #13 defense again next season if they hit the bulls eye and drafted a big time defensive end that could replace Jared Allen with the upgrades in the secondary(Carr, Flowers, Leggett).

We dont even know who the defensive coaches are going to be, what type of system they are going to run and the types of players that will fit that system.

PhillyChiefFan
01-29-2009, 11:59 AM
The OP has a valid point, but with the Fitzpatrick remark he lost cred with that point.

Yea, I was trying to ignore that part of the post :D

In my mind, Stafford is the pick at #3 if he is there, if not we have plenty of other holes to address.

Sanchez is raw, talented but raw IMHO. We need a QB that could step in and compete right away with Thigpen.

I'm all for getting a franchise QB, very few teams are successful without one, but it seems that those that want Sanchez is reaching for an immediate fix that won't be there.

Wish it would be Stafford and Matt Ryan to choose from this year :)

BigCatDaddy
01-29-2009, 11:59 AM
What ****ing valid point was that? That he's terrified to draft a QB this year just like half the board is?

That we shouldn't reach based on need. I think half the board is terrified to take Sanchez. If Stafford slips and we take him, you will see a collective CP orgasm. It's isn't the position as much as the player.

That being said, I have confidence that whoever they take this year will be the right choice, which is more then I can say for the last 15 years. If Pioli see's something in Sanchez and thinks he is guy, then great. I'm sure he is a better evaluation of talent then any poster here, Mecca excluded of course....

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 11:59 AM
We don't HAVE to do shit.

Where do these people get this idea that it's SOOOOOO ****ing easy to trade down out of the top 3. Teams will have to give up a lot of picks to move up...and there has to be someone there who's worth it to them.

Trading out of the top 3 is more difficult than it needs to be because idiot GMs rely on a draft chart to determine trade value. The good news is, we have a GM that won't make that mistake.

Given Pioli's history, if he believes he can get the guy he really wants a little lower in the draft, he will trade out of the #3 pick, even if that means getting slightly less trade value. If Stafford and/or Oher are on board, I don't think it will be difficult to find takers.

I think you could easily trade down and still get Sanchez. Sanchez is the guy I would prefer but I think at #3, it's a huge reach.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 12:00 PM
What ****ing valid point was that? That he's terrified to draft a QB this year just like half the board is?

I'm not terrified of selecting a QB. The better option is to move down and select a possible dominant DE or LB. Why are you afraid of selecting a DE/LB?

Brock
01-29-2009, 12:01 PM
I'm not terrified of selecting a QB. The better option is to move down and select a possible dominant DE or LB. Why are you afraid of selecting a DE/LB?

It's almost completely unrealistic. A trade down isn't going to happen.

jspchief
01-29-2009, 12:01 PM
Name the talent on USC's offense.
They may not be across-the-board first rounders, but that team has a shitload of talent on offense.

How many minutes did Sanchez play from behind? That defense kept him out tight spots too.

Don't get me wrong. Sanchez is probably my pick at #3. But the con that he hasn't been tested much is legitimate.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 12:02 PM
You could make the same argument for trading down, getting more picks and selecting someone like Everette Brown. You would be passing on a DE with the talent of Brown. He could end being a player like Shawn Merriman. It's a risk either way. No one knows.

The Chiefs had the #13 ranked defense in 2007. They had an old secondary in Ty Law and Surtain. They lost Jared Allen last season. You could make the argument that the Chiefs could have a #13 defense again next season if they hit the bulls eye and drafted a big time defensive end that could replace Jared Allen with the upgrades in the secondary(Carr, Flowers, Leggett).

You're comparing apples to oranges. We NEED a DE. We don't need an OLB for a 3-4 defense (as of yet). There is no DE worth the #3 spot. However...there are two QBs that are worth the #3 spot. Stafford and Sanchez. Go into the Draft forum and read the stuff on Sanchez.

And quit saying that we should just trade down. Everyone says it every year....and it never happens. How about this? We should just trade down for the Eagles two 1st round picks. Guess what....it would cost the Eagles their ENTIRE draft. Yeah....all 10 picks. to move up to the #3 spot.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 12:04 PM
Trading out of the top 3 is more difficult than it needs to be because idiot GMs rely on a draft chart to determine trade value. The good news is, we have a GM that won't make that mistake.

Given Pioli's history, if he believes he can get the guy he really wants a little lower in the draft, he will trade out of the #3 pick, even if that means getting slightly less trade value. If Stafford and/or Oher are on board, I don't think it will be difficult to find takers.

I think you could easily trade down and still get Sanchez. Sanchez is the guy I would prefer but I think at #3, it's a huge reach.

Well I figured it would come sooner or later. Here he is with the tired argument titled:

"THE NFL DRAFT VALUE CHART IS THE SUX000000RZ!!!!!"

PhillyChiefFan
01-29-2009, 12:06 PM
I don't think any of this is going to get resolved until we have a HC and DC personally.

A QB this year is a must, when is up for debate but we will be drafting a QB no matter what Thigpen says. Pioli doesn't strike me as the type to go into a season without a full compliment of prepared and competant QB's.

He has done a good job so far picking QB's (see Brady and Cassell) granted it remains to be seen how much influence BB had on that, but still I'm much more hopeful with him behind the helm than Carl Peterson and Herm Edwards.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 12:07 PM
You do know there is free agency and other draft picks, right?

The difference between Orakpo or Curry and what you can get in the second/third isn't very great. The difference between Stafford/Sanchez and Bomar or (snort) Fitzpatrick is f'ing huge.

THIS IS NOT TRUE. Look at history. Read this article. There are a lot ways to win the superbowl.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story?id=09000d5d80e2ffe8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

I wish I could make everyone read the article above.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 12:07 PM
Stupidity level around here is so freaking high. QB is the most important position in the freaking NFL. Hell in all of sports. Not MLB, not LT which we have, Not DE. We are in position now to grap a franchise QB. You are not in this position very often. Sanchez right now is at worse a top 10 pick. By draft day he will be top 3 easily. Next year's draft is loaded with defensive talent. Tons of it. Especially at DE. MLB is a 3rd or 4th round pick not a 1st. We have free agency as well to work with the defense. Don't expect a freaking Miami Dolphin season next year either. It isnt happening. Besides that team will fall flat on their face this year. We are in the same position to be the 90's Dallas Cowboys of this decade, and alot of you want to be the freaking Chiefs of the 90's.

Brock
01-29-2009, 12:09 PM
Oh great, the old "Tom Brady was a sixth rounder" argument. How tiresome.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 12:10 PM
THIS IS NOT TRUE. Look at history. Read this article. There are a lot ways to win the superbowl.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story?id=09000d5d80e2ffe8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

I wish I could make everyone read the article above.

And I'm tired of the whole argument that "Tom Brady was a 6th round pick....let's just draft QBs late in the draft and we'll hit one!"

Tom Brady was a fucking anomaly.

suds79
01-29-2009, 12:12 PM
Why does everybody assume that Matt Cassell is the 2nd coming at Qb?

He's had 1 good year.

Well, so did Derek Anderson

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 12:12 PM
You're comparing apples to oranges. We NEED a DE. We don't need an OLB for a 3-4 defense (as of yet). There is no DE worth the #3 spot. However...there are two QBs that are worth the #3 spot. Stafford and Sanchez. Go into the Draft forum and read the stuff on Sanchez.

And quit saying that we should just trade down. Everyone says it every year....and it never happens. How about this? We should just trade down for the Eagles two 1st round picks. Guess what....it would cost the Eagles their ENTIRE draft. Yeah....all 10 picks. to move up to the #3 spot.

The Ravens traded down last year from the 8th pick. It happens almost every year.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 12:13 PM
Well I figured it would come sooner or later. Here he is with the tired argument titled:

"THE NFL DRAFT VALUE CHART IS THE SUX000000RZ!!!!!"

The draft chart is retarded. I don't know how anyone can defend that piece of shit piece of paper.

Would you trade the same compensation for Chris Long as you would for Calvin Johnson? Because your lame draft chart says you should offer the same exact compensation for it.

The Ravens and the Pats are the two teams who like to trade down most. They do it a lot. I guess they have no idea what they're doing.

Brock
01-29-2009, 12:13 PM
The Ravens traded down last year from the 8th pick. It happens almost every year.

How often does a trade involving top 3 draft picks happen?

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 12:14 PM
The Ravens traded down last year from the 8th pick. It happens almost every year.

The 8th pick and the 3rd pick are two totally different things. That's like saying that it's just as easy to trade out of the 10th pick as it is to trade out of the 1st pick.

Frosty
01-29-2009, 12:14 PM
THIS IS NOT TRUE. Look at history. Read this article. There are a lot ways to win the superbowl.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story?id=09000d5d80e2ffe8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

I wish I could make everyone read the article above.

I fail to see what that article had to do with what I posted about the value of the picks.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 12:14 PM
The draft chart is retarded. I don't know how anyone can defend that piece of shit piece of paper.

Would you trade the same compensation for Chris Long as you would for Calvin Johnson? Because your lame draft chart says you should offer the same exact compensation for it.

The Ravens and the Pats are the two teams who like to trade down most. They do it a lot. I guess they have no idea what they're doing.

Whether you think it's retarded or not....teams use it. So get over it.

thurman merman
01-29-2009, 12:15 PM
Thigpen is better than Fitzpatrick.

exactly.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 12:16 PM
How often does a trade involving top 3 draft picks happen?

That's exactly the problem. It doesn't happen enough because the draft chart is stupid and it asks for the moon, and so teams take players they don't necessarily want.

The problem is that when a team negotiates a trade, they wait for the right offer instead of proactively making the right offer work. If a team was willing to pick up the phone and negotiate instead of waiting for the phone to ring, I guarantee you'd see a lot of movement.

The fact that you never see trades in the top 3 tells you the draft chart is way off.

thurman merman
01-29-2009, 12:17 PM
go kill yourself... and video tape it so I can watch it over and over

is that really necessary? you really want to watch a video of a suicide over an opinion about football?

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 12:18 PM
Whether you think it's retarded or not....teams use it. So get over it.

And yet the Ravens and the Pats are two teams who don't swear by it.

Hmm.....

Maybe we should stop living our life based on what Matt Millen and Al Davis does. Isn't it interesting that the same teams usually end up drafting in the top 5?

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 12:18 PM
Ryan fucking Fitzpatrick.

Jesus.

Tapdancing.

Mother.

Loving.

Tittyfucking.

Christ.


http://i44.tinypic.com/xaxbtg.jpg

melbar
01-29-2009, 12:20 PM
I completely agree with you.

I'm not convinced of Sanchez ( I know I'll get blasted for this, but what the hell)

I'd take Stafford, if no Stafford...take a QB but in the 3rd or 4th round.

I just don't see sticking with Sanchez at #3.

I trust Pioli and his influence, if he doesn't believe completely in the player, I dont' think he will allow it with or without HC support.

I'm in agreement with you both here also. If the guy is worthy of a top 5 pick ya, but as has been stated many times here, lets not reach for need. That being said Maybe SAnchez will be worth it, ,but man the lack of experience makes me nervous. most of what I've seen has him at around #10 in value thus far, and the value/risk for a team with so many holes is scary.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 12:21 PM
Oh, and to add to the fun, here comes zilla to tell us why NFL GM's are stupid for using a chart to determine value for draft picks.

We're covering all the bases in this thread.

All we need now is someone to suggest that Philadelphia may want to trade up to 3 to take Crabtree, and give us both their 1st round picks in return.

HAT TRICK.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 12:21 PM
Funny that the Ravens and Patriots trades last year were very similar matched up on the trade chart.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 12:22 PM
Oh, and to add to the fun, here comes zilla to tell us why NFL GM's are stupid for using a chart to determine value for draft picks.

We're covering all the bases in this thread.

All we need now is someone to suggest that Philadelphia may want to trade up to 3 to take Crabtree, and give us both their 1st round picks in return.

HAT TRICK.

86 more days like this.

the Talking Can
01-29-2009, 12:23 PM
is that really necessary? you really want to watch a video of a suicide over an opinion about football?

yes

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 12:23 PM
Funny that the Ravens and Patriots trades last year were very similar matched up on the trade chart.

He doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

I've read where Eric Decosta of the Ravens has backed Ozzie Newsome off a trade because they weren't getting value according to the chart.

He's full of shit thinking the Ravens and Patriots don't use the chart.

Every trade is a case-by-case basis, depending on players, picks and needs.

Just because the Patriots have made a trade in the past where they left 100 points on the table doesn't mean they don't use the chart.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 12:24 PM
86 more days like this.

The fun won't stop there...

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 12:25 PM
Oh, and to add to the fun, here comes zilla to tell us why NFL GM's are stupid for using a chart to determine value for draft picks.

We're covering all the bases in this thread.

All we need now is someone to suggest that Philadelphia may want to trade up to 3 to take Crabtree, and give us both their 1st round picks in return.

HAT TRICK.

I already brought it up and shot it down myself. You know...just to get it out of the way.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 12:26 PM
I already brought it up and shot it down myself. You know...just to get it out of the way.

Damn, I missed it.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 12:27 PM
Oh, and to add to the fun, here comes zilla to tell us why NFL GM's are stupid for using a chart to determine value for draft picks.

We're covering all the bases in this thread.

All we need now is someone to suggest that Philadelphia may want to trade up to 3 to take Crabtree, and give us both their 1st round picks in return.

HAT TRICK.

I'll keep hammering the point home until people get it.

The draft chart is the most retarded instrument I have ever seen. Anyone who has ever been in a live negotiation knows that.

Making trades off the same draft chart every year is like selling your house for the same price in 2009 as you would have sold it for in 2007.

Sorry, you want to make the argument that GMs know what they're doing because they're in positions of power. We've learned by now watching some of the idiots in corporate America that they often lack the most basic common sense. As I said before, the best GMs in football typically don't get top 5 picks. So am I wrong in saying that the teams that are in the top 5 every freaking year like the Lions and the Dolphins and the 49ers have idiot GMs? That's exactly what I'm saying.

CoMoChief
01-29-2009, 12:29 PM
This is kinda a weak draft towards the top of the 1st rd. IMO we need to trade down.

Brock
01-29-2009, 12:30 PM
I'll keep hammering the point home until people get it.

The draft chart is the most retarded instrument I have ever seen. Anyone who has ever been in a live negotiation knows that.

Making trades off the same draft chart every year is like selling your house for the same price in 2009 as you would have sold it for in 2007.


The value of draft picks =/= the value of money.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 12:30 PM
This is kinda a weak draft towards the top of the 1st rd. IMO we need to trade down.

:banghead:

Brock
01-29-2009, 12:31 PM
This is kinda a weak draft towards the top of the 1st rd. IMO we need to trade down.

If this is a weak draft toward the top of the first round, then I'm sure other teams' GMs will be beating down the door trying to trade up.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 12:33 PM
He doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

I've read where Eric Decosta of the Ravens has backed Ozzie Newsome off a trade because they weren't getting value according to the chart.

He's full of shit thinking the Ravens and Patriots don't use the chart.

Every trade is a case-by-case basis, depending on players, picks and needs.

Just because the Patriots have made a trade in the past where they left 100 points on the table doesn't mean they don't use the chart.

It's not about using a chart as reference. It's about using the chart as a bible.

The draft chart is a benchmark. It is not a standard. In a year when talent level is low, you have to scale down the chart, and when it is high you have to scale it up. That doesn't happen in the NFL. Teams are sticklers for the draft chart and I'm willing to bet they kill way more trades than they should because the other team was a round or two off in compensation.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 12:36 PM
If this is a weak draft toward the top of the first round, then I'm sure other teams' GMs will be beating down the door trying to trade up.

If it's a weak draft toward the top, again, why do teams try to trade out of that pick with compensation for Calvin Johnson/Reggie Bush type talent? That's the thing I don't get. If it's a weak draft, you need to pick up the phone and work harder to make a trade, and you need to be flexible enough to scale your demands down. I am willing to bet that most teams are completely against the idea of negotiating down from the chart. No, you don't give a player away from free, but I am willing to bet that over 75% of teams squash any trade that isn't exactly at the chart's compensation and that is borderline craziness.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 12:39 PM
I'll keep hammering the point home until people get it.

The draft chart is the most retarded instrument I have ever seen. Anyone who has ever been in a live negotiation knows that.

Making trades off the same draft chart every year is like selling your house for the same price in 2009 as you would have sold it for in 2007.

Sorry, you want to make the argument that GMs know what they're doing because they're in positions of power. We've learned by now watching some of the idiots in corporate America that they often lack the most basic common sense. As I said before, the best GMs in football typically don't get top 5 picks. So am I wrong in saying that the teams that are in the top 5 every freaking year like the Lions and the Dolphins and the 49ers have idiot GMs? That's exactly what I'm saying.

Yep, you're the genius, and the 32 retards who run the operation for NFL teams have no clue.

Got it.

In the last 5 drafts (counting 2009) 17 (more than half) teams have had a Top 5 pick.

23 different teams have had a Top 10 pick in the last 5 drafts.

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 12:44 PM
This thread for the True Fans:

http://www.a3bs.com/imagelibrary/U19553/electricity-and-magnetism/U19553_horseshoe-magnet-140-mm-with-yoke.jpg

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 12:53 PM
That's exactly the problem. It doesn't happen enough because the draft chart is stupid and it asks for the moon, and so teams take players they don't necessarily want.

The problem is that when a team negotiates a trade, they wait for the right offer instead of proactively making the right offer work. If a team was willing to pick up the phone and negotiate instead of waiting for the phone to ring, I guarantee you'd see a lot of movement.

The fact that you never see trades in the top 3 tells you the draft chart is way off.

Polian has said the same exact thing.

Brock
01-29-2009, 12:59 PM
The only thing I've ever heard Polian remark on is the monetary commitment required in a top draft pick.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 01:00 PM
And I'm tired of the whole argument that "Tom Brady was a 6th round pick....let's just draft QBs late in the draft and we'll hit one!"

Tom Brady was a ****ing anomaly.

How about? and those are just superbowl winners. there are a lot of successful QB's that are taken late.

Joe Montana 3rd round

Kurt Warner undrafted

Mark Rypien 6th round

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:01 PM
We need a franchise QB. Period. Not Thigpen, not Fitzpatrick, a franchise QB. This year. I would rather he take his lumps this year.

Preferably Stafford, Sanchez, or even Cassel if Pioli believes in him.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 01:03 PM
The only thing I've ever heard Polian remark on is the monetary commitment required in a top draft pick.

Exactly.

Teams don't trade into the Top 5 because of the financial commitment.

For example, if Jacksonville wanted to move up to #3, they'd be looking at roughly a $20M increase to their payroll, with roughly $13M of that being guaranteed money. Those number would be even higher if they traded up to take a QB.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:05 PM
And BTW, some of the scouts have said Sanchez is the top-rated QB in this draft, not Stafford.

I would be cool with picking him at #3.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:15 PM
How about? and those are just superbowl winners. there are a lot of successful QB's that are taken late.

Joe Montana 3rd round

Kurt Warner undrafted

Mark Rypien 6th round

I love when people pick the exception, rather than the rule...

Define "a lot"...

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 01:17 PM
http://www.walterfootball.com/draftmailbag.php

Mark Sanchez will not go to the Chiefs at No. 3 with only one full year of college experince as a starter - he is too risky at number 3. Aaron Curry makes alot of since with the Chiefs likely to make the move to the 3-4 defense, they need alot of help in the middle. I already think the Chiefs will make a run at another middle linebacker through free agency and Curry is versatile enough to play outside while Clint Sinstim could move to the line when we move to the 4-3 to mix things up.

There are alot of holes to fill on the roster and don't see any smart GM throwing a young QB to the dogs without help, so I see Tyler Thigpen being the rag doll for at least one more season, and if he does well and can run an offense other then the spread, the Chiefs have found a diamond in the rough for a future QB.


My Response:

Thanks for the e-mail, but I couldn't disagree with you more.

Every single pick in the NFL Draft is risky. Anyone can be a bust. Anyone - even Aaron Curry.

Check out the trends for the first three NFL Draft picks since 1998. Only one linebacker has been drafted in the top three since then, and that linebacker was a bust. That's because the linebacker position isn't one of great value.

Top Three NFL Draft Pick Trends (http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftpicks.php)

The Chiefs are in a new regime, and new regimes almost always mean a first-round pick spent on a quarterback. I like Tyler Thigpen myself, and I think he deserves a shot to be the starter, but my mock draft is based on what I think WILL happen; not on what I think SHOULD happen.

RustShack
01-29-2009, 01:18 PM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

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

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

Go play in a busy intersection.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-29-2009, 01:19 PM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

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

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

kill yourself.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:19 PM
Would you rather have a "diamond in the rough" or "an athlete with all the physical tools and second-to-none work ethic, but not a lot of experience"?

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 01:20 PM
The 8th pick and the 3rd pick are two totally different things. That's like saying that it's just as easy to trade out of the 10th pick as it is to trade out of the 1st pick.

That's not necessarily true. The amount of compensation is the problem. The Ravens gave two 3rd round picks and and a fourth. That compensation was to move up from 18 to 8.

Would that amount of compensation work to move from the 3rd pick to 8th??? I don't know, but I would consider it.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:21 PM
That's not necessarily true. The amount of compensation is the problem. The Ravens gave two 3rd round picks and and a fourth. That compensation was to move up from 18 to 8.

Would that amount of compensation work to move from the 3rd pick to 8th??? I don't know, but I would consider it.

No, it wouldn't be enough. From 8 to 3 would need to include next year's first, or a slew of picks this year.

Frosty
01-29-2009, 01:24 PM
Moving from 8 to 3 would take a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, with the Chiefs giving back a 5th, if you go by the chart.

RustShack
01-29-2009, 01:25 PM
If you don't understand the draft, don't talk about it.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 01:26 PM
Moving from 8 to 3 would take a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, with the Chiefs giving back a 5th, if you go by the chart.

And cue the people who hate the draft value chart.......


3.............2..............1................

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 01:26 PM
We need a franchise QB. Period. Not Thigpen, not Fitzpatrick, a franchise QB. This year. I would rather he take his lumps this year.

Preferably Stafford, Sanchez, or even Cassel if Pioli believes in him.

We need a big time rusher, period.

Who do you think was more responsible for the Giants superbowl win, Eli Manning or Justin Tuck?

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 01:27 PM
We need a big time rusher, period.

Who do you think was more responsible for the Giants superbowl win, Eli Manning or Justin Tuck?

Who do you think is more easily replaced?

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:27 PM
The Ravens gave two 3rd round picks and and a fourth. That compensation was to move up from 18 to 8.

Ravens FO > Jacksonville FO

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:28 PM
We need a big time rusher, period.

Who do you think was more responsible for the Giants superbowl win, Eli Manning or Justin Tuck?

Eli Manning.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 01:29 PM
No, it wouldn't be enough. From 8 to 3 would need to include next year's first, or a slew of picks this year.

Would two 3rd's and a 4th be considered a slew??? It's very possible that the chiefs could trade down a few spots. It would probably require multiple picks, but I would be happy with that.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 01:32 PM
So exactly who are we trading down for.

I want to hear your argument for trading down. I want to hear what team is going to trade up, for what player, what compensation and who we're going to be trading down for. And it better make some fucking sense.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 01:32 PM
Eli Manning.

Because Tyree caught the ball against his head??? give me a break.

the patriots would have put up 50 if it weren't for the d line of the giants.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:34 PM
Because Tyree caught the ball against his head??? give me a break.

the patriots would have put up 50 if it weren't for the d line of the giants.

Did you pay any attention to Eli's stats during the postseason last year?

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:35 PM
Because Tyree caught the ball against his head??? give me a break.

the patriots would have put up 50 if it weren't for the gameplanning of Steve Spaugnolo and Eli's performance under pressure.

FYP

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:37 PM
BTW, we absolutely do need a pass rush. We need a DE (maybe 2) + multiple LBs.

I just don't see any worth #3 overall this year.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 01:37 PM
In the last 5 drafts (counting 2009) 17 (more than half) teams have had a Top 5 pick.

23 different teams have had a Top 10 pick in the last 5 drafts.

Still waiting for this to be addressed by the guy that claims that only bad GM's have high picks every year.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 01:39 PM
So exactly who are we trading down for.

I want to hear your argument for trading down. I want to hear what team is going to trade up, for what player, what compensation and who we're going to be trading down for. And it better make some fucking sense.

Yeah well I'm still waiting on the thread starter to answer this one.

Coogs
01-29-2009, 01:41 PM
BTW, we absolutely do need a pass rush. We need a DE (maybe 2) + multiple LBs.

I just don't see any worth #3 overall this year.

And next years draft is very top heavy on the defensive side of the ball. Most likely we will be picking high again next year. Got the LT last year. Get the QB this year. Add the defender next year.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 01:44 PM
Yeah well I'm still waiting on the thread starter to answer this one.

If he can provide a believable scenario where we pick up extra picks, nab a defender or two (well, there are actually multiple needs so I'll be flexible with this requirement), and secure a potential franchise QB, I would be all for it.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 01:51 PM
So exactly who are we trading down for.

I want to hear your argument for trading down. I want to hear what team is going to trade up, for what player, what compensation and who we're going to be trading down for. And it better make some ****ing sense.

Just for kicks, I'll give you a few. I don't know if any of these are possible or not, but who does.

The Bengals give a 3rd and 5th to move up from 6 to 3 to take Michael Crabtree before the Seahawks do at 4.

Jacksonville gives a 3rd, 4th and 4th next year to move from 8 to 3 to LT Andre Smith from Alabama.

San Fran gives a 2nd, 4th, and 4th next year to move from 10 to 3 to take Sanchez.

The Pats give Cassell and a 4th to move from 23 to 3 to take CB Malcolm Jenkins.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 01:53 PM
The Bengals give a 3rd and 5th to move up from 6 to 3 to take Michael Crabtree before the Seahawks do at 4.


This is assuming they let TJ go.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 02:15 PM
The Bengals give a 3rd and 5th to move up from 6 to 3 to take Michael Crabtree before the Seahawks do at 4.



If they make it their 2nd & 5th, I would take it (although I don't have "the chart" in front of me)

Then I would take Sanchez (assuming Browns don't take a Qb...I would be a little hesitant on this if they trade Derek Anderson before the draft), and hope to land a LB (Cushing/Matthews) and a DE (Johnson?) in the 2nd.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:19 PM
Just for kicks, I'll give you a few. I don't know if any of these are possible or not, but who does.

The Bengals give a 3rd and 5th to move up from 6 to 3 to take Michael Crabtree before the Seahawks do at 4.

This is assuming they let TJ go.

If they make it their 2nd & 5th, I would take it (although I don't have "the chart" in front of me)

Then I would take Sanchez (assuming Browns don't take a Qb...I would be a little hesitant on this if they trade Derek Anderson before the draft), and hope to land a LB (Cushing/Matthews) and a DE (Johnson?) in the 2nd.

Even if they let TJ walk, they still have Chris Henry and Jerome Simpson to replace him.

The Bengals have MUCH more pressing needs than a WR.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 02:21 PM
Even if they let TJ walk, they still have Chris Henry and Jerome Simpson to replace him.

The Bengals have MUCH more pressing needs than a WR.

Agreed, but if they were stupid enough to give up their 2nd & 5th to move up 3 spots, I would take it.

Chances of it happening? Slim to none.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 02:23 PM
Just for kicks, I'll give you a few. I don't know if any of these are possible or not, but who does.

The Bengals give a 3rd and 5th to move up from 6 to 3 to take Michael Crabtree before the Seahawks do at 4. If I'm doing that trade...then I want their 1st, 2nd and 4th to move up to the 3rd spot. Also...now that Crabtree is gone...Seattle might be looking to grab Sanchez with the 4th pick. Curry goes to the Browns at 5. Who do we take then?

Jacksonville gives a 3rd, 4th and 4th next year to move from 8 to 3 to LT Andre Smith from Alabama. I want their 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks. Either that or I'll take a 1st, 3rd and a 2nd next year to get up to the 3rd spot. Crabtree goes 4th. Curry goes 5th. Michael Oher goes 6th. Who knows what the Raiders will do. Who do we take then?

San Fran gives a 2nd, 4th, and 4th next year to move from 10 to 3 to take Sanchez. I'm not going to allow someone to trade up into our spot to take someone that we should be grabbing. Plus it would take a lot more than that to get there. I'd want their 1st this year and their 1st next year.

The Pats give Cassell and a 4th to move from 23 to 3 to take CB Malcolm Jenkins. Matt Cassell is not worth 1500 points (the #7 pick in the draft) and the Patriots have a history of not drafting CBs high.

Answers

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 02:25 PM
Answers

I think Seattle would take a tackle in that scenario, Pace is older than Hasselbeck, isn't he?

Good point, though, not sure if I would risk it.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 02:27 PM
I think Seattle would take a tackle in that scenario, Pace is older than Hasselbeck, isn't he?

Good point, though, not sure if I would risk it.

They might....but I remember reading somewhere that Hasselbeck is going to count $14 million against the cap this year.

Pace plays for the Rams not the Seahawks.

EDIT: Plus Hasselbeck is 33 and has been getting injured more and more each season.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 02:29 PM
Still waiting for this to be addressed by the guy that claims that only bad GM's have high picks every year.

If we're talking about the best in the business, how many top 5 picks have the Ravens, Colts, Pats, Eagles, Steelers, and Panthers had? These are undoubtedly the best drafters in the league. Sure, you have a few good teams float in there every once in a while like the Giants and the Chargers, but for the most part, the teams that typically draft in the top 5 usually never get beyond mediocre at best.

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 02:31 PM
They might....but I remember reading somewhere that Hasselbeck is going to count $14 million against the cap this year.

Pace plays for the Rams not the Seahawks.

EDIT: Plus Hasselbeck is 33 and has been getting injured more and more each season.

Doh, I meant Jones. :)

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 02:34 PM
They might....but I remember reading somewhere that Hasselbeck is going to count $14 million against the cap this year.

Pace plays for the Rams not the Seahawks.

EDIT: Plus Hasselbeck is 33 and has been getting injured more and more each season.

Nevertheless, you are correct, it would be risky.

I would still take Sanchez, and install a film-room setup in his new house.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 02:36 PM
Nevertheless, you are correct, it would be risky.

I would still take Sanchez, and install a film-room setup in his new house.

And that's assuming that Sanchez is still there when we pick at #6. Who's to say that the Browns or the Seahawks wouldn't trade their pick to another team who wants Sanchez.

Chiefaholic
01-29-2009, 02:38 PM
We were unsuccessful in trading out of the #5 spot last year with arguably the best athlete still on the board because we weren't offered fair compensation. What makes you thing somebody will ante up even more fo the #3 spot? I want a freakin' playmaker drafted. I want the type of guy who can change the outcome of the game like DT used to do. After being miserable watching the Chiefs week after week looking like the practice squad on the field, trading down doesn't cut it for me.

We can't go into this draft thinking that we'll take the best QB available. We have to enter draft day looking for the guy who takes over a game, whether it be offense or defense. If Stafford's there, snatch him up, if not take the next best athlete reguardless of position.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 02:40 PM
Someone give me one downside of Sanchez (minus experience)

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:41 PM
Someone give me one downside of Sanchez (minus experience)

You're either going to be waiting a LONG time, or get an answer we're all going to get a good laugh out of.

Chiefaholic
01-29-2009, 02:42 PM
Oh yeah... Take Matt Cassell and shove him up your keyster. He's average at best playing with a supporting cast of Pro-Bowl talent all around him. Even with all that talent, he wasn't good enough to finish the job. I sure as hell wouldn't trade 1st's for that piece of shit... Peyton Manning, yes... Cassell, HELL NO!!!

Frosty
01-29-2009, 02:43 PM
Someone give me one downside of Sanchez (minus experience)

Duh - he played at USC so he's just like Leinart.

chiefscafan
01-29-2009, 02:43 PM
I've been saying for awhile we need to trade down at least twice and gain more 2 be round picks. I love the idea tradding down and eventually receiving two Philadelphia picks then tradding the later first for cassel and build I line with the 2 be and third round picks.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 02:44 PM
Oh, and to add to the fun, here comes zilla to tell us why NFL GM's are stupid for using a chart to determine value for draft picks.

We're covering all the bases in this thread.

All we need now is someone to suggest that Philadelphia may want to trade up to 3 to take Crabtree, and give us both their 1st round picks in return.

HAT TRICK.

I've been saying for awhile we need to trade down at least twice and gain more 2 be round picks. I love the idea tradding down and eventually receiving two Philadelphia picks then tradding the later first for cassel and build I line with the 2 be and third round picks.


HAT TRICK!

You've found your man.

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 02:44 PM
Someone give me one downside of Sanchez (minus experience)

Isn't that like saying "someone give me one downside to X(minus the fact he can't hit water falling out of a boat)"

Experience seems to be a factor as big as accuracy.

Who will play QB next year if KC takes Sanchez and he isn't ready to start?

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:46 PM
I've been saying for awhile we need to trade down at least twice and gain more 2 be round picks. I love the idea tradding down and eventually receiving two Philadelphia picks then tradding the later first for cassel and build I line with the 2 be and third round picks.

Take your pick.

This:

http://bbs.bigredboard.com/phpBB3/images/smilies/suicide.gif

Or this:

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8522/hangingwb8.gif

Do us all a favor, and make it quick.

Brock
01-29-2009, 02:46 PM
Isn't that like saying "someone give me one downside to X(minus the fact he can't hit water falling out of a boat)"

Experience seems to be a factor as big as accuracy.

Who will play QB next year if KC takes Sanchez and he isn't ready to start?

Thigpen.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:47 PM
Isn't that like saying "someone give me one downside to X(minus the fact he can't hit water falling out of a boat)"

Experience seems to be a factor as big as accuracy.

Who will play QB next year if KC takes Sanchez and he isn't ready to start?

The same person that will play if they take Stafford, or don't take a QB at all?

MadMax
01-29-2009, 02:47 PM
Why does everybody assume that Matt Cassell is the 2nd coming at Qb?

He's had 1 good year.

Well, so did Derek Anderson


Because they are retarded...:thumb: Might as well get Carl back in to evaluate talent.:rolleyes:

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 02:47 PM
Isn't that like saying "someone give me one downside to X(minus the fact he can't hit water falling out of a boat)"

Experience seems to be a factor as big as accuracy.

Who will play QB next year if KC takes Sanchez and he isn't ready to start?

You let Thigpen and Sanchez battle it out in training camp. Whomever wins....gets the starting job in 2009. If Thigpen does a good job...then you have trade bait. If Thigpen stinks....then you have Sanchez to come in. Worked for the Chargers and it would have worked for the Browns if they hadn't gotten greedy and gave Anderson a new contract.

kstater
01-29-2009, 02:47 PM
It really is too risky to draft a QB. Sign Warner. What the Chiefs really need is a RG. Any guard look good enough for #3?

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:48 PM
It really is too risky to draft a QB. Sign Warner. What the Chiefs really need is a RG. Any guard look good enough for #3?

Fuck that.

We need a center.

Guard can wait.

kstater
01-29-2009, 02:49 PM
What about Chase Daniels in the 2nd?

ChiefRon
01-29-2009, 02:49 PM
It really is too risky to draft a QB. Sign Warner. What the Chiefs really need is a RG. Any guard look good enough for #3?

This is getting amusing.

jspchief
01-29-2009, 02:50 PM
Isn't that like saying "someone give me one downside to X(minus the fact he can't hit water falling out of a boat)"

Experience seems to be a factor as big as accuracy.

Who will play QB next year if KC takes Sanchez and he isn't ready to start?I'd say out of all the cons you can place on a QB prospect, experience is maybe the least scary.

Who will play if Sanchez isn't ready? Does it matter? No one we take at #3 is going to make the team a contender. Rookie QBs almost never make an impact in their first season. Flacco and Ryan are huge aberrations.

Instead of worrying so much about what the pick does in 2009, we should be focusing on what he can do for the Chiefs for many years to come. Trading down to pick up a bunch of players this year just makes us another version of the middle of the road team that the Chiefs have been for the better part of 2 decades.

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 02:50 PM
Thigpen.

What if he can't play behind center in a pro set?

Micjones
01-29-2009, 02:50 PM
Fuck that.

We need a center.

Guard can wait.

Because our current Center can be our Right Guard.

DaKCMan AP
01-29-2009, 02:51 PM
It really is too risky to draft a QB. Sign Warner. What the Chiefs really need is a RG. Any guard look good enough for #3?

**** that.

We need a center.

Guard can wait.

Colquitt's getting kind of old. We really should target the BAP (best available punter) so that we're not in a funk once our MVP retires. Could that person be Britton Colquitt? :hmmm:

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:52 PM
What about Chase Daniels in the 2nd?

In the 2nd?

I don't think he'll last that long.

We should trade down 4 times, collect 7 picks, and take him in the late 1st.

Then we can pick 7 offensive linemen, and 6 linebackers with the 13 remaining picks.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:52 PM
Because our current Center can be our Right Guard.

Quit fucking with our fun.

:D

kstater
01-29-2009, 02:52 PM
In the 2nd?

I don't think he'll last that long.

We should trade down 4 times, collect 7 picks, and take him in the late 1st.

Then we can pick 7 offensive linemen, and 6 linebackers with the 13 remaining picks.

ROFL

Brock
01-29-2009, 02:52 PM
What if he can't play behind center in a pro set?

With an upgraded offensive line, I don't see why he couldn't.

Frosty
01-29-2009, 02:53 PM
In the 2nd?

I don't think he'll last that long.

We should trade down 4 times, collect 7 picks, and take him in the late 1st.

Then we can pick 7 offensive linemen, and 6 linebackers with the 13 remaining picks.

One of those picks should also be for Josh Freeman, you know, in case Chase can't play under center in a pro set.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 02:54 PM
Colquitt's getting kind of old. We really should target the BAP (best available punter) so that we're not in a funk once our MVP retires. Could that person be Britton Colquitt? :hmmm:

God....could you imagine? Two Colquitts on the same team. We'll punt our way to victory!

DaKCMan AP
01-29-2009, 02:54 PM
One of those picks should also be for Josh Freeman, you know, in case Chase can't play under center in a pro set.

Don't forget to draft Chase Daniel's backup, Chase Patton, too.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:57 PM
I'd say out of all the cons you can place on a QB prospect, experience is maybe the least scary.

Who will play if Sanchez isn't ready? Does it matter? No one we take at #3 is going to make the team a contender. Rookie QBs almost never make an impact in their first season. Flacco and Ryan are huge aberrations.

Instead of worrying so much about what the pick does in 2009, we should be focusing on what he can do for the Chiefs for many years to come. Trading down to pick up a bunch of players this year just makes us another version of the middle of the road team that the Chiefs have been for the better part of 2 decades.

Reptastic.

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 02:58 PM
I'd say out of all the cons you can place on a QB prospect, experience is maybe the least scary.

Who will play if Sanchez isn't ready? Does it matter? No one we take at #3 is going to make the team a contender. Rookie QBs almost never make an impact in their first season. Flacco and Ryan are huge aberrations.

Instead of worrying so much about what the pick does in 2009, we should be focusing on what he can do for the Chiefs for many years to come. Trading down to pick up a bunch of players this year just makes us another version of the middle of the road team that the Chiefs have been for the better part of 2 decades.

There is a difference between making an impact and not being ready for the NFL. I think the starting QB next year does matter. I don't think Thigpen and Sanchez would work well in the same scheme.

milkman
01-29-2009, 02:59 PM
That we shouldn't reach based on need. I think half the board is terrified to take Sanchez. If Stafford slips and we take him, you will see a collective CP orgasm. It's isn't the position as much as the player.

That being said, I have confidence that whoever they take this year will be the right choice, which is more then I can say for the last 15 years. If Pioli see's something in Sanchez and thinks he is guy, then great. I'm sure he is a better evaluation of talent then any poster here, Mecca excluded of course....

Even if you ignored the draft value chart, you still have to at least use it as a guide.

kcbubb says "let's trade out of the 3 spot to the 9 spot".

Going by the value chart, if the team at 9 were to trade up, it would take their entire draft, and it still wouldn't be enough.

So, let's ignore it and take what might be fair value in your mind.

Even then, they'd have to give up more than just a couple of picks to make that move.

And the team at the 9 spot isn't going to give up nearly what they should in order to make that move.

It's a stupid fucking idea, and people around here need to get a fucking clue.

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 03:00 PM
With an upgraded offensive line, I don't see why he couldn't.

Lots of spread offense college QB's never make the transition.

rad
01-29-2009, 03:02 PM
Even if you ignored the draft value chart, you still have to at least use it as a guide.

kcbubb says "let's trade out of the 3 spot to the 9 spot".

Going by the value chart, if the team at 9 were to trade up, it would take their entire draft, and it still wouldn't be enough.

So, let's ignore it and take what might be fair value in your mind.

Even then, they'd have to give up more than just a couple of picks to make that move.

And the team at the 9 spot isn't going to give up nearly what they should in order to make that move.

It's a stupid ****ing idea, and people around here need to get a ****ing clue.

Yep.

Mike Ditka ruined it for everybody.

rad
01-29-2009, 03:04 PM
In the 2nd?

I don't think he'll last that long.

We should trade down 4 times, collect 7 picks, and take him in the late 1st.

Then we can pick 7 offensive linemen, and 6 linebackers with the 13 remaining picks.

Fuck that, we'll just draft 14 QB's......were bound to hit on one of 'em.

milkman
01-29-2009, 03:07 PM
I completely agree with you.

I'm not convinced of Sanchez ( I know I'll get blasted for this, but what the hell)

I'd take Stafford, if no Stafford...take a QB but in the 3rd or 4th round.

I just don't see sticking with Sanchez at #3.

I trust Pioli and his influence, if he doesn't believe completely in the player, I dont' think he will allow it with or without HC support.

Im guessing you didn't see much of Sanchez.

I watched Stafford about 6 times this last season, and Sanchez almost every game.

Both have huge upside, but Sanchez was more consistent and showed more composure and polish this year than did Stafford.

They both look like they are going to be top of the line NFL QBs, but Sanchez, in spite of his lack of playing time, is much more mature and more ready to handle the pressures of the NFL, IMO.

Brock
01-29-2009, 03:07 PM
Lots of spread offense college QB's never make the transition.

I suppose if all that comes to pass, then you're stuck with the same offense for another year.

BigCatDaddy
01-29-2009, 03:08 PM
Even if you ignored the draft value chart, you still have to at least use it as a guide.

kcbubb says "let's trade out of the 3 spot to the 9 spot".

Going by the value chart, if the team at 9 were to trade up, it would take their entire draft, and it still wouldn't be enough.

So, let's ignore it and take what might be fair value in your mind.

Even then, they'd have to give up more than just a couple of picks to make that move.

And the team at the 9 spot isn't going to give up nearly what they should in order to make that move.

It's a stupid ****ing idea, and people around here need to get a ****ing clue.

Why did you quote my post in this reply?

milkman
01-29-2009, 03:12 PM
Why did you quote my post in this reply?

Cause I'm a dumbass who quoted the wrong post.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 03:13 PM
The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

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

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

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn182/lightbringerrr/9d6e6491.jpg

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 03:13 PM
Cause I'm a dumbass who quoted the wrong post.

LMAO.

Getting old sucks.

:D

BigMeatballDave
01-29-2009, 03:14 PM
JFC. I'm not even gonna read through this shit...

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 03:14 PM
There is a difference between making an impact and not being ready for the NFL. I think the starting QB next year does matter. I don't think Thigpen and Sanchez would work well in the same scheme.

You can't say that Sanchez isn't ready for the NFL. And if we draft Sanchez....then I'm almost positive that we won't be running the spread.

milkman
01-29-2009, 03:16 PM
JFC. I'm not even gonna read through this shit...

I just have a few minutes right now, but it's pretty clear someone opened the gates and the idiots came flooding through.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 03:19 PM
JFC. I'm not even gonna read through this shit...

I just have a few minutes right now, but it's pretty clear someone opened the gates and the idiots came flooding through.

It was basically the same shit that it always is. Let's trade for Cassell! Let's trade down! Don't pick a QB at #3....it's too scary! Only this time some dipshit threw in the name of Ryan Fitzpatrick.

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 03:21 PM
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii261/Da_Grimm_One/DAP.jpg

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 03:22 PM
Am I just missing something with Sanchez?

BTW, I'm a diehard PSU fan and yes I did see what he did to a good PSU defense in the Rose Bowl.

Was he that good throughout the rest of the season? Honest question.

Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 03:22 PM
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn182/lightbringerrr/9d6e6491.jpg

Please, DCS - use the Official GTFO Image of ChiefsPlanet:

http://www.gifflix.com/files/7868c9eaa99d.gif

rad
01-29-2009, 03:23 PM
go kill yourself... and video tape it so I can watch it over and over

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8522/hangingwb8.gif

Go play in a busy intersection.

kill yourself.

Granted, the OP is a little retarded, but I never understood these types of responses. I would imagine these guys could have added something more valuable to the discussion than simple death wishes. I guess that's why they call it tha internet.

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 03:25 PM
Please, DCS - use the Official GTFO Image of ChiefsPlanet:

http://www.gifflix.com/files/7868c9eaa99d.gif

Just pretend she's saying, "Would you like to **** in here?"

Cause I'd put that June Cleaver to sleep.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://territerri.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/june-cleaver.jpg&imgrefurl=http://territerri.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/confession-time/&usg=__xD9govw2x0PY5PV9W8gNC-xvF-E=&h=240&w=320&sz=13&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=hw0uMRwY3SFpBM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djune%2Bcleaver%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 03:25 PM
Oh great, the old "Tom Brady was a sixth rounder" argument. How tiresome.

This is the line in the sand.
If I see that factoid one more fucking time; it's war.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 03:26 PM
Granted, the OP is a little retarded, but I never understood these types of responses. I would imagine these guys could have added something more valuable to the discussion than simple death wishes. I guess that's why they call it tha internet.

Eh.

IMO, it's the new "your and idiot."

When people just post every single thought that enters their head without taking the time to consider its validity, then you're gonna get these responses.

If you don't respect the membership enough to think before you post, your mindless bullshit isn't likely to be respected.

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 03:28 PM
You can't say that Sanchez isn't ready for the NFL. And if we draft Sanchez....then I'm almost positive that we won't be running the spread.


I certainly can say Sanchez isn't ready. 1 year as a starter isn't enough.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 03:28 PM
This is the line in the sand.
If I see that factoid one more fucking time; it's war.

I'll be right next to you on the frontline.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 03:29 PM
I certainly can say Sanchez isn't ready. 1 year as a starter isn't enough.

But but but.....Tom Brady wasn't ready for the NFL then!

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 03:30 PM
Please, DCS - use the Official GTFO Image of ChiefsPlanet:

http://www.gifflix.com/files/7868c9eaa99d.gif

Entourage is gay, and Piven hasn't done SHIT since "PCU" with David Spade.

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 03:34 PM
But but but.....Tom Brady wasn't ready for the NFL then!

Brady started for two years.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 03:34 PM
It was basically the same shit that it always is. Let's trade for Cassell! Let's trade down! Don't pick a QB at #3....it's too scary! Only this time some dipshit threw in the name of Ryan Fitzpatrick.

If the Chiefs were publicly owned like the Packers, I doubt they'd have a win this decade.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 03:35 PM
I certainly can say Sanchez isn't ready. 1 year as a starter isn't enough.

You certainly CAN say it, although it doesn't make it true.

The past has NO BEARING on what happens in the future. You're talking about different eras, different teams, different offensive schemes, different coaches, and varying levels of talent among players.

Prior to Brady, a 6th round pick hadn't won a SB.

I'm sure Pioli was sitting in the War Room thinking, "You know Bill, a 6th rounder has never won a SB. Why are we drafting this kid?"

Prior to Warner, an UDFA hadn't won a SB.

If you want to continue to compare him to Akili Smith, just because of his number of starts, go right ahead. I won't stop you from looking foolish.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 03:36 PM
Entourage is gay, and Piven hasn't done SHIT since "PCU" with David Spade.

Tough shit.

Use it, and keep June fucking Cleaver off my front lawn.

TIA.

:D

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 03:37 PM
I certainly can say Sanchez isn't ready. 1 year as a starter isn't enough.

I certainly can say the following:

Fire.

Jump.

Die.

My patience on this shit is absolutely gone.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 03:38 PM
Tough shit.

Use it, and keep June fucking Cleaver off my front lawn.

TIA.

:D

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn182/lightbringerrr/rochester.jpg

Frosty
01-29-2009, 03:40 PM
If you want to continue to compare him to Akili Smith, just because of his number of starts, go right ahead. I won't stop you from looking foolish.

Akili Smith failed because he was as smart as a box of rocks.

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 03:43 PM
You certainly CAN say it, although it doesn't make it true.

The past has NO BEARING on what happens in the future. You're talking about different eras, different teams, different offensive schemes, different coaches, and varying levels of talent among players.

Prior to Brady, a 6th round pick hadn't won a SB.

I'm sure Pioli was sitting in the War Room thinking, "You know Bill, a 6th rounder has never won a SB. Why are we drafting this kid?"

Prior to Warner, an UDFA hadn't won a SB.

If you want to continue to compare him to Akili Smith, just because of his number of starts, go right ahead. I won't stop you from looking foolish.

He had a very good 1st year as a starter at USC. He had the benefit of excellent coaching and having great surrounding players. 10 of their games were blowouts. He didn't have to fight back and come from behind very often. He had favorable conditions to succeed and he played very well in those conditions. But, history shows that the number of college starts a first round draft pick has is very important to the overall success of that pick. Maybe Sanchez will be the first guy to buck that trend, who knows.

Chiefnj2
01-29-2009, 03:45 PM
I certainly can say the following:

Fire.

Jump.

Die.

My patience on this shit is absolutely gone.

You watch football sitting on your daddy's lap while wearing a sundress. Nobody gives a fuck about your patience or your overall lack of knowledge of football you dumb ass cock gobbler.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 03:52 PM
Akili Smith failed because he was as smart as a box of rocks.

Ding.

You are correct, Arc.

Please select a category.

Reaper16
01-29-2009, 03:53 PM
You watch football sitting on your daddy's lap while wearing a sundress. Nobody gives a fuck about your patience or your overall lack of knowledge of football you dumb ass cock gobbler.
i no u r butt wat am i?

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 03:54 PM
You watch football sitting on your daddy's lap while wearing a sundress. Nobody gives a fuck about your patience or your overall lack of knowledge of football you dumb ass cock gobbler.

Maybe Sanchez will be the first guy to buck that trend, who knows.

Apparently, you don't know shit either motherfucker.

I certainly can say Sanchez isn't ready. 1 year as a starter isn't enough.

What the fuck do YOU know about ready?! I didn't realize I was posting on the same board as Vince Lombardi.
And as far as my watching habits go, I prefer on the bed with your old ladies lips around my cock while I use her ass as a beer holder.
Motherfucker.

Frosty
01-29-2009, 03:54 PM
Ding.

You are correct, Arc.

Please select a category.

I'll take "Dumbass Oregon Quarterbacks" for $200, Alex.

:D

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 03:56 PM
You watch football sitting on your daddy's lap while wearing a sundress. Nobody gives a **** about your patience or your overall lack of knowledge of football you dumb ass cock gobbler.


And as far as my watching habits go, I prefer on the bed with your old ladies lips around my cock while I use her ass as a beer holder.
Mother****er.

ROFL

Generally, this sort of stuff is really annoying, but this exchange made me laugh.

DeezNutz
01-29-2009, 03:59 PM
I'll take "Dumbass Oregon Quarterbacks" for $200, Alex.

:D

This stupid motherfucker said his nickname was the pianist, but his teammates just called him the penis.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 03:59 PM
I'll take "Dumbass Oregon Quarterbacks" for $200, Alex.

:D

I'm sorry, that category is closed.

May I suggest, "Dumbshits that want to trade down 4 times" for $1000?

Frosty
01-29-2009, 04:04 PM
This stupid mother****er said his nickname was the pianist, but his teammates just called him the penis.

Who is Joey "5 Pick" Harrington?

rad
01-29-2009, 04:08 PM
Apparently, you don't know shit either mother****er.



What the **** do YOU know about ready?! I didn't realize I was posting on the same board as Vince Lombardi.
And as far as my watching habits go, I prefer on the bed with your old ladies lips around my cock while I use her ass as a beer opener.
Mother****er.

That's would be funnier.

I especially like the "motherfucker" at the end. People don't use that enough IMO.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 04:16 PM
ROFL

Generally, this sort of stuff is really annoying, but this exchange made me laugh.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYq_P8VJK9U


:shrug:

Ultra Peanut
01-29-2009, 04:34 PM
Get the QB this year. Get some O-line and LB's with some other picks. Get the DE next year when some very good DE's will be in the draft early... which is in all likelyhood where we will be picking again.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2010.php

Or Spikes or Mays for that matter.That's preposterous!

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 04:38 PM
That's preposterous!

I'll take anyone of these guys next year.

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

PastorMikH
01-29-2009, 04:52 PM
Seeing this thread on the main page I got to wondering, "I wonder if that article was written by a sportwriter for one of the teams picking 4-7."

Crush
01-29-2009, 04:54 PM
This thread is 98% n00b. Where's Skip when you need him?

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 04:57 PM
Someone give me one downside of Sanchez (minus experience)

The knock on him is that he holds onto the ball way too long. Right now, he is Jeff Garcia with a much, much better arm. That's a big knock, because in the NFL, you can't afford to hold onto the ball because you're going to get knocked on your ass 9 times out of 10.

I personally like Sanchez and I actually like him a lot better than Stafford and I think it's because he has the fire to be a leader that I don't see as much in Stafford, but let's not pretend that he's Mr. Perfect.

Darth CarlSatan
01-29-2009, 05:03 PM
The knock on him is that he holds onto the ball way too long. Right now, he is Jeff Garcia with a much, much better arm. That's a big knock, because in the NFL, you can't afford to hold onto the ball because you're going to get knocked on your ass 9 times out of 10.

I personally like Sanchez and I actually like him a lot better than Stafford and I think it's because he has the fire to be a leader that I don't see as much in Stafford, but let's not pretend that he's Mr. Perfect.

If his receivers have their routes down, he releases the ball plenty fast. He's not like McNabb back there; can't throw under pressure, can't throw when NOT under pressure, and taking enough time to read the stock report.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 05:10 PM
Even if you ignored the draft value chart, you still have to at least use it as a guide.

kcbubb says "let's trade out of the 3 spot to the 9 spot".

Going by the value chart, if the team at 9 were to trade up, it would take their entire draft, and it still wouldn't be enough.

So, let's ignore it and take what might be fair value in your mind.

Even then, they'd have to give up more than just a couple of picks to make that move.

And the team at the 9 spot isn't going to give up nearly what they should in order to make that move.

It's a stupid ****ing idea, and people around here need to get a ****ing clue.

But let's dive a little further. If the rumor is true that nobody wants to trade into a top 3 pick because they don't want to pay the high salary, then that must also mean that some teams picking in the top 3 pick are somewhat resentful that they have to pick there. ESPECIALLY when the draft class is lousy and you have to pay top-flight money to pay for a guy you don't even want. So here's the million dollar question: if the teams picking in the top 3 often resent the fact that they are "stuck" with a top 3 pick, then why do they set the draft compensation so that it's impossible to trade into the top 3?

I'll make it nice and simple: if teams are flat-out refusing to trade into the top 3 year after year after year after year, that means that the draft chart blows. And you can't tell me for a second that there haven't been teams that have tried to trade out. And you can't tell me that there aren't teams out there that would have traded a decent trade value for a guy like Calvin Johnson or Reggie Bush.

I'm sorry, but people are defending the draft chart. And yet, teams that want to trade out of their spot can't year after year. That is as clear a sign as any that the compensation is fucked up and needs to be changed.

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 05:19 PM
Let me throw out a hypothetical....
New Orleans was obviously willing and ready to trade out of the #9 spot to get Glenn Dorsey. If they were in long negotiations with the Chiefs, that means that they were offering probably offering Kansas City something like a 2nd round pick (in exchange for KC's 4th or 5th round pick). If you're the St. Louis Rams. You are at #2. You obviously don't want Dorsey. And you don't want Matt Ryan. And you don't want McFadden. Those are the three top guys on the board. And so you spend your #2 pick on an overachiever named Chris Long, who is really top 10 material, but definitely not deserving of a top 5 pick.

If you're St. Louis and you knew New Orleans was hot and heavy to trade up for Dorsey, does it matter to you that you're getting a 2nd round pick instead of a first round pick and any other additional pick? The draft chart says that you're getting screwed by about 500 points which is highway robbery. I would even make that trade for a 2nd rounder alone. And so, the Rams overpay for a guy who doesn't belong in the top 5, all because of "trade value."

If you're the Rams in the top 3 and none of the guys who deserve top 5 picks are on the top of your chart, why do you stick around and create a huge wall where it is impossible to trade into? I just don't get it. If the Rams would have traded down, they would have spent half as much money on a solid top 10 pick and had an extra second round pick to boot.

Brock
01-29-2009, 05:19 PM
But let's dive a little further. If the rumor is true that nobody wants to trade into a top 3 pick because they don't want to pay the high salary, then that must also mean that some teams picking in the top 3 pick are somewhat resentful that they have to pick there. ESPECIALLY when the draft class is lousy and you have to pay top-flight money to pay for a guy you don't even want. So here's the million dollar question: if the teams picking in the top 3 often resent the fact that they are "stuck" with a top 3 pick, then why do they set the draft compensation so that it's impossible to trade into the top 3?

How resentful can they be? They don't even have to draft a player if they don't want to.

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 05:20 PM
Even if you ignored the draft value chart, you still have to at least use it as a guide.

kcbubb says "let's trade out of the 3 spot to the 9 spot".

Going by the value chart, if the team at 9 were to trade up, it would take their entire draft, and it still wouldn't be enough.

So, let's ignore it and take what might be fair value in your mind.

Even then, they'd have to give up more than just a couple of picks to make that move.

And the team at the 9 spot isn't going to give up nearly what they should in order to make that move.

It's a stupid ****ing idea, and people around here need to get a ****ing clue.

you're right. it's stupid. it's inconceivable to think that someone could move up 6 spots.

Here's the details where the Saints traded up three spots last year. Guess who was involved in trading down???

Patriots trade No. 7 to Saints
New Orleans picks USC DT Sedrick Ellis and also receives New England's 5th (No. 164).

New England gets No. 10 from New Orleans and pick Tennessee OLB Jerod Mayo and also receive the Saints 3rd-round pick (No. 78).

blueballs
01-29-2009, 05:25 PM
you're the carrots in lime jello
why

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 05:26 PM
How resentful can they be? They don't even have to draft a player if they don't want to.

That's a great point that I never thought of. And it makes me wonder why teams don't.

We always hear stories about how teams laugh at the compensation asked for a top 3 pick. Which again begs the question: if teams are consistently laughing the compensation off, then why is the compensation so ridiculously high? I would argue that these days, the #1 pick is even less valuable than the #3 pick in most draft classes.

Sam Hall
01-29-2009, 05:33 PM
Get Sanchez some more offensive line help before the draft and I'm fine with him. Hell, I'm fine with him regardless.

milkman
01-29-2009, 05:37 PM
But let's dive a little further. If the rumor is true that nobody wants to trade into a top 3 pick because they don't want to pay the high salary, then that must also mean that some teams picking in the top 3 pick are somewhat resentful that they have to pick there. ESPECIALLY when the draft class is lousy and you have to pay top-flight money to pay for a guy you don't even want. So here's the million dollar question: if the teams picking in the top 3 often resent the fact that they are "stuck" with a top 3 pick, then why do they set the draft compensation so that it's impossible to trade into the top 3?

I'll make it nice and simple: if teams are flat-out refusing to trade into the top 3 year after year after year after year, that means that the draft chart blows. And you can't tell me for a second that there haven't been teams that have tried to trade out. And you can't tell me that there aren't teams out there that would have traded a decent trade value for a guy like Calvin Johnson or Reggie Bush.

I'm sorry, but people are defending the draft chart. And yet, teams that want to trade out of their spot can't year after year. That is as clear a sign as any that the compensation is ****ed up and needs to be changed.

Again, I'm not saying that you have to strictly adhere to the value chart, but you do have ro use it as a common sense guide.

To move up from 10 to 3 for only a 2nd is a huge point differential.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:38 PM
Boy this thread brought it all out...

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

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

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

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

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

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 05:39 PM
It was basically the same shit that it always is. Let's trade for Cassell! Let's trade down! Don't pick a QB at #3....it's too scary! Only this time some dipshit threw in the name of Ryan Fitzpatrick.

I believe in defense. Our defense was next to last. Therefore, I want to draft defense and build a defense. I don't believe in any of the QB's in this draft. So, I would look to free agency to find someone to compete with Thigpen for the spot. I wouldn't want to give it to him. And I wouldn't want to sign an old veteran.

Look what parcells did with Dallas. He came in and signed a vet at QB Vinny Testaverde. And then he built the defense. At Miami, Parcells signed Chad Pennington, and drafted LT Jake Long in the first round. But he picked DE Phillip Merling and DT Kendall Langford in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:39 PM
Again, I'm not saying that you have to strictly adhere to the value chart, but you do have ro use it as a common sense guide.

To move up from 10 to 3 for only a 2nd is a huge point differential.

If you dropped from 3 to 10 for only a 2nd rounder you'd be raked over the coals for being a retard. And then you'd be called cheap 'they took whatever deal they could get because they didn't wanna pay this player"

milkman
01-29-2009, 05:39 PM
you're right. it's stupid. it's inconceivable to think that someone could move up 6 spots.

Here's the details where the Saints traded up three spots last year. Guess who was involved in trading down???

Patriots trade No. 7 to Saints
New Orleans picks USC DT Sedrick Ellis and also receives New England's 5th (No. 164).

New England gets No. 10 from New Orleans and pick Tennessee OLB Jerod Mayo and also receive the Saints 3rd-round pick (No. 78).

What you are talking about here is a substantial difference in value.

7 to 5 is only a two spot difference.

You are talking about a major jump from 3 to 10.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:40 PM
I believe in defense. Our defense was next to last. Therefore, I want to draft defense and build a defense. I don't believe in any of the QB's in this draft. So, I would look to free agency to find someone to compete with Thigpen for the spot. I wouldn't want to give it to him. And I wouldn't want to sign an old veteran.

Look what parcells did with Dallas. He came in and signed a vet at QB Vinny Testaverde. And then he built the defense. At Miami, Parcells signed Chad Pennington, and drafted LT Jake Long in the first round. But he picked DE Phillip Merling and DT Kendall Langford in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

Yea he also drafted Drew Bledsoe with the 1st overall pick.

Sam Hall
01-29-2009, 05:44 PM
Here's how I see it: The Chiefs will address a couple areas in free agency, making Sanchez the obvious pick. We will all be happy.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 05:45 PM
you're right. it's stupid. it's inconceivable to think that someone could move up 6 spots.

Here's the details where the Saints traded up three spots last year. Guess who was involved in trading down???

Patriots trade No. 7 to Saints
New Orleans picks USC DT Sedrick Ellis and also receives New England's 5th (No. 164).

New England gets No. 10 from New Orleans and pick Tennessee OLB Jerod Mayo and also receive the Saints 3rd-round pick (No. 78).

There's only a 200 point difference between the 7th and 10th pick.

The Saints 3rd round pick was worth that 200 points.

New England's #164 was worth 25.

So, even strict use of the chart shows only a 25 point "loss" by the Patriots.

That's nothing.

People here are advocating giving up HUNDREDS of points in value to move down.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:46 PM
I really wish people would take the time to watch Sanchez for 5 minutes before saying something like "oh he started one year, he played at USC"

People worry about experience because of little things, most QB's need alot of starts because they aren't technically sound. When you watch Sanchez you can easily see he doesn't have that issue. His dropbacks are superb, his footwork is 2nd to none, he has NFL caliber footwork right now.

His intangibles and leadership are top notch, if you put him next to Stafford, he is better than Stafford at all of those things, Stafford has a better arm.

milkman
01-29-2009, 05:47 PM
I believe in defense. Our defense was next to last. Therefore, I want to draft defense and build a defense. I don't believe in any of the QB's in this draft. So, I would look to free agency to find someone to compete with Thigpen for the spot. I wouldn't want to give it to him. And I wouldn't want to sign an old veteran.

Look what parcells did with Dallas. He came in and signed a vet at QB Vinny Testaverde. And then he built the defense. At Miami, Parcells signed Chad Pennington, and drafted LT Jake Long in the first round. But he picked DE Phillip Merling and DT Kendall Langford in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

I believe in defense also.

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

But I want a franchise QB also.

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


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

This is a QB driven league more than ever now.

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

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

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:49 PM
I really don't understand the fear, Stafford and Sanchez are the best QB prospects in college right now, there will not be a better one next year, they are both better prospects than Sam Bradford.

Dicky McElephant
01-29-2009, 05:49 PM
There's only a 200 point difference between the 7th and 10th pick.

The Saints 3rd round pick was worth that 200 points.

New England's #164 was worth 25.

So, even strict use of the chart shows only a 25 point "loss" by the Patriots.

That's nothing.

People here are advocating giving up HUNDREDS of points in value to move down.

This.....

It's not like the Patriots gave the Saints a handout. They actually used the draft value chart to determine the value of their pick.

DaneMcCloud
01-29-2009, 05:50 PM
Because it might be scary to draft a QB with the #3 overall pick, I think the Chiefs should just pass.

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

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:52 PM
This.....

It's not like the Patriots gave the Saints a handout. They actually used the draft value chart to determine the value of their pick.

We all knew this shit was coming right?

FEAR, half the board will always tell us the QB's aren't good enough and will always want to trade down. We will then have a section that thinks taking an offensive lineman with the first pick every year is a good idea.

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

chiefzilla1501
01-29-2009, 05:53 PM
If you dropped from 3 to 10 for only a 2nd rounder you'd be raked over the coals for being a retard. And then you'd be called cheap 'they took whatever deal they could get because they didn't wanna pay this player"

And that is exactly the problem. They shouldn't get raked over the coals. And this is exactly the reason why it's so impossible to trade out of a top 3 spot. But it shouldn't be nearly this impossible.

The differential from a 1 to a 4 pick is practically insurmountable. And that's completely ridiculous. If I traded down from a 1 to a 3 pick, I think a 2nd round pick would be outstanding value. But the trade chart says you got screwed.

I think the draft chart is mostly okay, but the way they configure the top 3 is beyond stupidity. I would argue that the best pick in the draft is not #1, but #4. Take a look at the chart. This is the first pick in the entire draft that has high value and is easy to trade out of.

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:54 PM
Yea I'd love to miss out on the 3 best players in the draft.

Deberg_1990
01-29-2009, 05:54 PM
Yea he also drafted Drew Bledsoe with the 1st overall pick.


Shocking isnt it??

That early 90's Patriot organization was in the same exact boat as this current Chiefs team is. Rock Bottom.


I think if you look back through history, most teams at rock bottom start with QB.

ChiefsCountry
01-29-2009, 05:55 PM
I think if you look back through history, most teams at rock bottom start with QB.

Pittsburgh - 1970
Dallas - 1989

:thumb:

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:56 PM
Shocking isnt it??

That early 90's Patriot organization was in the same exact boat as this current Chiefs team is. Rock Bottom.


I think if you look back through history, most teams at rock bottom start with QB.

Kinda funny that numerous of us called this happening back in October, we all knew the QB fear mongering would be out in full force.

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

kcbubb
01-29-2009, 05:56 PM
What you are talking about here is a substantial difference in value.

7 to 5 is only a two spot difference.

You are talking about a major jump from 3 to 10.

it wasn't 7 to 5. The Saints moved from 10 to 7 for less than a 3rd pick.

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

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

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:57 PM
it wasn't 7 to 5. The Saints moved from 10 to 7 for less than a 3rd pick.

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

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

This is why you aren't very bright...but of course you want to rebuild the 90s Chiefs team or the current Titans that can't win shit.