PDA

View Full Version : The True Fans Have Launched a Counter-Offensive


'Hamas' Jenkins
02-11-2009, 05:25 PM
This fucking shit is wearing me out. All this pro-Curry, pro-6th round QB bullshit needs to be put down.

milkman
02-11-2009, 05:28 PM
Good luck with that.

doomy3
02-11-2009, 05:38 PM
Get over yourself.

Pestilence
02-11-2009, 05:39 PM
Yeah....good luck. It's not going to end and the arguments against taking a QB are just going to get worse the closer it gets to the draft.

I'm awaiting the meltdown that happens if we take Sanchez or Stafford at #3.

CanadaKC
02-11-2009, 05:39 PM
"True Fans"...instant neg rep

the Talking Can
02-11-2009, 05:40 PM
"True Fans"...instant neg rep

you know how i know you're a true fan?

CupidStunt
02-11-2009, 05:45 PM
Another thread yapping about the supposed root of the problem.

Here's an idea: STFU and use the ignore tool for every "true fan" you encounter.

Remember Hootie? Me neither, after I exterminated the twat with my ignore tool.

Basileus777
02-11-2009, 05:51 PM
It's whac-a-mole. The True Fans will just keep coming until everyone else just gives up from exhaustion.

DeezNutz
02-11-2009, 05:54 PM
It's whac-a-mole. The True Fans will just keep coming until everyone else just gives up from exhaustion.

Fuck that.

I can beat up all the third graders in the yard. It's like the Seinfeld episode where Kramer gets the blackbelt.

orange
02-11-2009, 05:56 PM
Yeah....good luck. It's not going to end and the arguments against taking a QB are just going to get worse the closer it gets to the draft.

I'm awaiting the meltdown that happens if we take Sanchez or Stafford at #3.

Equal or greater than the meltdown if you don't? Or are you franchise QB drafter-backers above all that?

doomy3
02-11-2009, 05:59 PM
Equal or greater than the meltdown if you don't? Or are you franchise QB drafter-backers above all that?

It will be much worse if we don't draft one of those two.

orange
02-11-2009, 06:04 PM
This would be a meltdown of HISTORIC proportions:

* Stafford and Sanchez both available
* Chiefs draft Orakpo (oh no, Teicher is right!)
* Chiefs draft Davis in Round 2 (OH NOOHNO, Whitlock is right?!)

I don't think it will happen, but if it did, wouldn't Kansas City go into China Syndrome?

DeezNutz
02-11-2009, 06:05 PM
It will be much worse if we don't draft one of those two.

Not necessarily.

Not sure what they're going to do at #3, but if the Chiefs were to take Nate Davis at the top of round 2, for example, I could see some head scratching, but most giving Pioli and co. the benefit of the doubt.

The QB situation has to be answered, and it will be. It's not a matter of "if," but "how."

doomy3
02-11-2009, 06:11 PM
Not necessarily.

Not sure what they're going to do at #3, but if the Chiefs were to take Nate Davis at the top of round 2, for example, I could see some head scratching, but most giving Pioli and co. the benefit of the doubt.

The QB situation has to be answered, and it will be. It's not a matter of "if," but "how."

I haven't seen any of these guys who call everyone True Fans say anything positive about Nate Davis, Freeman, etc. I mean, you really believe this group will be happy if we draft Curry/Orakpo/Jenkins in the first and then grab one of those guys at the top of the second?

HemiEd
02-11-2009, 06:15 PM
Yeah....good luck. It's not going to end and the arguments against taking a QB are just going to get worse the closer it gets to the draft.

I'm awaiting the meltdown that happens if we take Sanchez or Stafford at #3.
I am awaiting the one that happens when they don't.

DeezNutz
02-11-2009, 06:15 PM
I haven't seen any of these guys who call everyone True Fans say anything positive about Nate Davis, Freeman, etc. I mean, you really believe this group will be happy if we draft Curry/Orakpo/Jenkins in the first and then grab one of those guys at the top of the second?

There's been some positive run about Davis on this board. Not nearly the amount about Stafford and Sanchez, and for obvious reasons, but it wouldn't result in meltdown.

OTW has provided some positive info. about Davis in the past, for example.

You want meltdown, that would be Smith in round 1 and Freeman in round 2. All the Pioli love would be over.

milkman
02-11-2009, 06:16 PM
I haven't seen any of these guys who call everyone True Fans say anything positive about Nate Davis, Freeman, etc. I mean, you really believe this group will be happy if we draft Curry/Orakpo/Jenkins in the first and then grab one of those guys at the top of the second?

I won't say anything positive about either Davis or Freeman because I haven't seen enough of them to form a reasonable opinion.

But then you won't see me make any negative comments either, and if Pioli passes on Stafford/Sanchez, I'll be disppointed, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt if he takes one of those two (Davis/Freeman) in the 2nd.

OnTheWarpath58
02-11-2009, 06:17 PM
I haven't seen any of these guys who call everyone True Fans say anything positive about Nate Davis, Freeman, etc. I mean, you really believe this group will be happy if we draft Curry/Orakpo/Jenkins in the first and then grab one of those guys at the top of the second?

Actually, I was, and still am a fan of Davis.

Myself and Duncan Idaho are his biggest fans on the board.

Freeman is a conversation not worth having.

Even being a big Davis fan, I'm not sure he's the type of guy that can win you a championship, and that's the whole point.

I wouldn't be absolutely devastated of they took Davis like some guys would, but I'd be far from thrilled either.

Basileus777
02-11-2009, 06:21 PM
I haven't really seen much of Davis, certainly not enough to really comment on him one way or another. However, I've seen enough of Freeman that I don't really want him.

keg in kc
02-11-2009, 06:22 PM
You want meltdown, that would be Smith in round 1 and Freeman in round 2. All the Pioli love would be over.Try drafting no quarterback at all, not bringing anybody in in free agency and then going into 2009 with Thigpen, Croyle and Huard.

That would be glorious to witness.

(Until the games started)

Basileus777
02-11-2009, 06:24 PM
Try drafting no quarterback at all, not bringing anybody in in free agency and then going into 2009 with Thigpen, Croyle and Huard.

That would be glorious to witness.

(Until the games started)

I think trading for Cassel would bring about the biggest meltdown. It's probably the only thing that could unite the True Fans and everyone else.

DeezNutz
02-11-2009, 06:24 PM
Try drafting no quarterback at all, not bringing anybody in in free agency and then going into 2009 with Thigpen, Croyle and Huard.

That would be glorious to witness.

(Until the games started)

I wouldn't be able to see a thing, since I'd be mixed up in the fray.

keg in kc
02-11-2009, 06:32 PM
I think trading for Cassel would bring about the biggest meltdown. It's probably the only thing that could unite the True Fans and everyone else.I think that would depend on what we traded away.

OnTheWarpath58
02-11-2009, 06:38 PM
Anyone here have photoshop skills?

Frosty
02-11-2009, 06:49 PM
This would be a meltdown of HISTORIC proportions:

* Stafford and Sanchez both available
* Chiefs draft Orakpo (oh no, Teicher is right!)
* Chiefs draft Davis in Round 2 (OH NOOHNO, Whitlock is right?!)

I don't think it will happen, but if it did, wouldn't Kansas City go into China Syndrome?

I wouldn't be unhappy with Davis, assuming he measures over 6'2" at the combine. I would be unhappy with the Orakpo pick.

OnTheWarpath58
02-12-2009, 02:14 PM
I posted this in another thread, and I'm going to continue to post it until it sinks in.

When you realize that in the 46 year history of this franchise being in KC, that we've only won SEVEN fucking playoff games, and that SIX of those seven were with Hall of Fame QB's under center, you'd think that this fanbase would quit de-fucking-valuing the QB position.

You'd think this fanbase would be picketing Arrowhead with sandwich boards BEGGING to take a QB early.

But no.

We love our "nobodies," our "has beens" and our "never gonna be's."

aturnis
02-12-2009, 02:15 PM
Who wants a sixth round quarterback?

Just wondering.

orange
02-12-2009, 02:37 PM
I posted this in another thread, and I'm going to continue to post it until it sinks in.

Those Hall of Fame QBs under center for KC's playoff wins - how many were drafted by the Chiefs - in the first round or any round?

BigCatDaddy
02-12-2009, 02:52 PM
Who wants a sixth round quarterback?

Just wondering.

Chase Patton is the 6th baby! :)

BigCatDaddy
02-12-2009, 02:54 PM
I haven't really seen much of Davis, certainly not enough to really comment on him one way or another. However, I've seen enough of Freeman that I don't really want him.

I don't know if I want him, but shouldn't he get some slack for being coached by the worst coaching staff in DI football?

Mr. Laz
02-13-2009, 03:59 PM
This ****ing shit is wearing me out. All this pro-Curry, pro-6th round QB bullshit needs to be put down.
then give up .... grab a shotgun ... shoot yourself in face


rinse and repeat as many times needed

melbar
02-14-2009, 01:25 AM
HERE YE HERE YE!!

Only approved subjects will be discussed on the Red planet!

1st approved subject:

Is Sanchez hair A Luxurious
or mearly B Silky smooth



Your right, this will be much more fun....:thumb:

melbar
02-14-2009, 01:33 AM
Here's the point a lot of people are missing.

Just because you draft a QB in the 1st doesnt necessarily mean you have your franchise QB.

In a perfect world yes. Its not that cut and dried.

Mecca
02-14-2009, 01:36 AM
Here's the point a lot of people are missing.

Just because you draft a QB in the 1st doesnt mean you have your franchise QB.

In a perfect world yes. Its not that cut and dried.

Nope it doesn't and if that happens you pick another one in a few years...

You can not have this huge fear of it because you need one.

I'd seriously rather have to take a top 5 QB twice than have Aaron Curry and some game manager QB that leads us to playoff losses.

melbar
02-14-2009, 01:57 AM
Nope it doesn't and if that happens you pick another one in a few years...

You can not have this huge fear of it because you need one.

I'd seriously rather have to take a top 5 QB twice than have Aaron Curry and some game manager QB that leads us to playoff losses.

I'm just saying because a guy is the best QB this year doesnt mean he's gonna automatically solve the problems. If Pioli and Haley break down the film and interview these 2 guys and dont feel they are what they need they shouldnt draft them just to be taking a QB in the 1st. There have been a lot of "dont draft just for need" arguments here the last several years that have seemingly gone out the window. If its not your guy, you dont draft him. Not saying its one way or the other with these guys, and I hope we get a QB too. You still have to evaluate the individual and the thought that you just draft a QB and our problems are solved isnt right. We're here to discuss all the options. Just because we're including all the elite prospects in the conversation doesnt mean someone is an idiot who should STFU, it means we're on a discussion board so lets look at all the options. ---K tired and rambling..later. :)

Mecca
02-14-2009, 01:59 AM
I'm not telling you to draft for need I'm telling you it's not smart to overdraft an undervalued position.

If Aaron Curry goes with the 3rd pick he's going to be the highest paid OLB in the game.

melbar
02-14-2009, 02:04 AM
I'm not telling you to draft for need I'm telling you it's not smart to overdraft an undervalued position.

If Aaron Curry goes with the 3rd pick he's going to be the highest paid OLB in the game.

Your probably right, but if for some reason P and H dont like either QB who do we draft? One of the 3 or 4 OT's? Orakpo? Who is the next best option is my question.

Mecca
02-14-2009, 02:08 AM
Your probably right, but if for some reason P and H dont like either QB who do we draft? One of the 3 or 4 OT's? Orakpo? Who is the next best option is my question.

Then you take Malcolm Jenkins....

If they take Orakpo I will lose my mind.

milkman
02-14-2009, 07:54 AM
Those Hall of Fame QBs under center for KC's playoff wins - how many were drafted by the Chiefs - in the first round or any round?

While it's true that the Chiefs have never drafted a franchise QB, it is also true that the best chance of finding a franchise QB remains a first round selection.

KCUnited
02-14-2009, 08:07 AM
Most of my friends aren't into football or any sports for that matter, that's primarily why I joined The Planet, so I don't talk much football when I'm out. So last night I meet up with my girlfriend and some of her co-workers and I sit with these 2 self proclaimed biggest Chiefs fans in the city. Both these guys where shitting themselves at the thought of drafting a QB at #3. I got everything from trade for Cassel to move Pollard to LB cuz he brings the wood to we got to fix the right side of the line in rd. 1 to **** Carl for trading JA. I couldn't take it any longer and just zoned it out. I'm thinking there maybe something to this tr00 fan thing. It was like watching 2 short bus kids doing an interpretive dance to The Planet.

HemiEd
02-14-2009, 08:08 AM
This ****ing shit is wearing me out. All this pro-Curry, pro-6th round QB bullshit needs to be put down.

Yeah, because this is an odd year, and you don't have to take best player available. This is the year you get to draft for need at the 3rd overall pick. Nice!

milkman
02-14-2009, 08:23 AM
Yeah, because this is an odd year, and you don't have to take best player available. This is the year you get to draft for need at the 3rd overall pick. Nice!

BPA has to account for positional value, especially in the top 5.

HemiEd
02-14-2009, 08:34 AM
BPA has to account for positional value, especially in the top 5.I hear what you and everyone has been saying about that, I do.
But no way am I convinced that Sanchez, playing behind that OL, for one season, can be construed as the best player available at 3.

I hope like hell whomever they draft, QB or not, turns out to be worth it, but Sanchez?

Oh thats right, he played at USC in a pro style offense, done, sign him, championship.

I also get it that the QBOF needs to be on this team soon, very soon.

milkman
02-14-2009, 08:43 AM
I hear what you and everyone has been saying about that, I do.
But no way am I convinced that Sanchez, playing behind that OL, for one season, can be construed as the best player available at 3.

I hope like hell whomever they draft, QB or not, turns out to be worth it, but Sanchez?

Oh thats right, he played at USC in a pro style offense, done, sign him, championship.

I also get it that the QBOF needs to be on this team soon, very soon.

Have you seen Sanchez play?

HemiEd
02-14-2009, 08:51 AM
Have you seen Sanchez play?
Just a couple games, and some highlights. Small sample for sure, but I didn't see anything that impressed me that much.

But as you know, I am sure no expert on great play, having spent most of my viewing hours watching the Chiefs.

Do you think he is cool under pressure? To me that is the key, more than measurables.

milkman
02-14-2009, 09:11 AM
Just a couple games, and some highlights. Small sample for sure, but I didn't see anything that impressed me that much.

But as you know, I am sure no expert on great play, having spent most of my viewing hours watching the Chiefs.

Do you think he is cool under pressure? To me that is the key, more than measurables.

I've seen all of his games.

To me, it's his poise, composure and leadership that makes him the prospect I think he is.

I've seen about 6 or 7 Georgia games, and I'm in the minority here, but I like Sanchez more than Stafford, specifically because of those intangibles.

But I'd take either at 3.

Agent V
02-14-2009, 09:17 AM
Why do I keep hearing the, "First round quarterback isn't a sure thing. We shouldn't risk it" arguement? That's about equal to George Lucas saying, "You know, this Star Wars thing might fail. I probably shouldn't try it."

CoMoChief
02-14-2009, 12:23 PM
FACT: Other than Stafford, there is no other QB coming out in this draft that is worth the #3 overall pick.

FACT: Other than a LT, no other player I can think of is worth the #3 overall pick.

FACT: Best scenario for the Chiefs right now is to trade down.

OnTheWarpath58
02-14-2009, 12:25 PM
FACT: Other than Stafford, there is no other QB coming out in this draft that is worth the #3 overall pick.

FACT: Other than a LT, no other player I can think of is worth the #3 overall pick.

FACT: Best scenario for the Chiefs right now is to trade down.



ROFL

Might want to crack open your dictionary and revisit the definition of the word "fact."

milkman
02-14-2009, 12:27 PM
FACT: Other than Stafford, there is no other QB coming out in this draft that is worth the #3 overall pick.

FACT: Other than a LT, no other player I can think of is worth the #3 overall pick.

FACT: Best scenario for the Chiefs right now is to trade down.

When did your dumbass opinion become "fact"?

ncCHIEFfan
02-14-2009, 01:50 PM
Anyone who thinks the Chiefs are beyond drafting the best player available has not been watching them play and there is nothing wrong with drating Curry or whom ever is Stafford is gone:D

HemiEd
02-14-2009, 02:04 PM
I've seen all of his games.

To me, it's his poise, composure and leadership that makes him the prospect I think he is.

I've seen about 6 or 7 Georgia games, and I'm in the minority here, but I like Sanchez more than Stafford, specifically because of those intangibles.

But I'd take either at 3.I respect your opinion on this, and it would make me feel better if they do pick him. You are the guy that was sold on Albert, and that sure turned out well.

Chiefnj2
02-14-2009, 03:03 PM
I'd like to know why Stafford was inconsistent with his accuracy. I know he throws off his back foot sometimes, but I have no idea if that is why he at times way overthrew WRs. If it is a coaching/mechanics issue I think Stafford would be the better QB. If it is mental then Sanchez might be the better long term prospect.

Questions with Sanchez - experience, hasn't had to come from behind and is surrounded by lots of talent, seems to get happy feet a little, I think he holds the ball a little low once he starts dancing around, doesn't have a great arm but has better touch than Stafford.

Questions about Stafford - great arm strength but he needs to put better touch on short passes (kind of like Croyle), some accuracy and decision making questions but it's hard to determine if it was him or inexperienced offensive players around him, might not be as good of a leader as Sanchez.

Mecca
02-14-2009, 10:09 PM
I'd like to know why Stafford was inconsistent with his accuracy. I know he throws off his back foot sometimes, but I have no idea if that is why he at times way overthrew WRs. If it is a coaching/mechanics issue I think Stafford would be the better QB. If it is mental then Sanchez might be the better long term prospect.

Questions with Sanchez - experience, hasn't had to come from behind and is surrounded by lots of talent, seems to get happy feet a little, I think he holds the ball a little low once he starts dancing around, doesn't have a great arm but has better touch than Stafford.

Questions about Stafford - great arm strength but he needs to put better touch on short passes (kind of like Croyle), some accuracy and decision making questions but it's hard to determine if it was him or inexperienced offensive players around him, might not be as good of a leader as Sanchez.

I'd like to know why some people would like to make Aaron Curry the highest paid LB in the NFL..

You could literally go sign Karlos Dansby for less money than Curry will get if he's picked 3rd.

Saccopoo
02-15-2009, 01:09 AM
I'd like to know why some people would like to make Aaron Curry the highest paid LB in the NFL..

You could literally go sign Karlos Dansby for less money than Curry will get if he's picked 3rd.

Now that is the most relevant argument I've seen yet.

melbar
02-15-2009, 01:04 PM
Then you take Malcolm Jenkins....

If they take Orakpo I will lose my mind.

No doubt there.

I like Jenkins. I just like Curry better. Just my oppinion, but we have 2 up and coming young corners and even average CB's can look a lot better with a strong front 7. I know that Curry didnt do a lot of pass rushing and we'll have to get more push up front, but we cant solve all of our problems in one pick. Here's why I like Curry IF we dont go QB.

We dont tackle well. Curry is an excellent tackler.
We dont have attitude on D. Curry is a big hitter.
We dont stop the run. Curry plays the gaps well and is stout against the run.
He also had `15 tackles behind the line last year.
We dont have playmakers. He had 3 ints for TD's last year. There's just an
intangeable there to be around the ball and do
something with it.
We are old and get injured a lot at LB. Curry hasnt missed any time in 4 years at college.

Now dont get me wrong on this next statement but, the big dig has been that Curry doesnt have the sack numbers. I would submit this:
Ray Lewis is probably the Best LB in the league and is the heart of a great Defense. Ray hasnt had more than 3.5 sacks since he had 4 in '97.

I'm not saying he's Ray, I'm just saying that you dont have to be the guy getting sacks to have a huge impact on a D. Ray wouldnt be Ray if guys werent putting pressure on the QB up front either, but there are some of the same qualities and i think poor LB play has been the major problem with our D.
Anyway, that is my thought process. Fire away.:D

Chiefnj2
02-15-2009, 03:47 PM
I'd like to know why some people would like to make Aaron Curry the highest paid LB in the NFL..

You could literally go sign Karlos Dansby for less money than Curry will get if he's picked 3rd.

You can use that foolhardy argument for any top draft pick.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-15-2009, 04:15 PM
You can use that foolhardy argument for any top draft pick.

Why don't you go check some vet QB contracts.

Mecca
02-15-2009, 07:08 PM
You can use that foolhardy argument for any top draft pick.

Oh really, tell me what all pro potential QB you're gonna sign, teams don't let top level QB's leave...LB's get into FA all the time.

Chiefnj2
02-16-2009, 10:13 AM
Why don't you go check some vet QB contracts.

Ryan at the #3 pick last year got 34.75 guaranteed. Manning's last contract had a guarantee of 34.5 and Roethlisberger's latest was 36 guaranteed. Brady's last contract had lower guaranteed/bonus money but higher yearly base amounts. It's reasonable to think that if a QB is taken #1 this year that the kid will make more than almost all vet QB's.

So yes, the argument why are you going to make Curry the highest paid LB in the NFL applies to other positions as well.

88TG88
02-16-2009, 11:30 AM
Mcshay has us taking Curry in his mock.

lol

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-16-2009, 02:57 PM
Ryan at the #3 pick last year got 34.75 guaranteed. Manning's last contract had a guarantee of 34.5 and Roethlisberger's latest was 36 guaranteed. Brady's last contract had lower guaranteed/bonus money but higher yearly base amounts. It's reasonable to think that if a QB is taken #1 this year that the kid will make more than almost all vet QB's.

So yes, the argument why are you going to make Curry the highest paid LB in the NFL applies to other positions as well.

Just looking at guaranteed money is idiotic for QBs. They aren't running backs. Manning, Roethlisberger, McNabb all got over 100 million in their contracts. Ryan wasn't even close to that.

Mecca
02-16-2009, 03:17 PM
Ryan at the #3 pick last year got 34.75 guaranteed. Manning's last contract had a guarantee of 34.5 and Roethlisberger's latest was 36 guaranteed. Brady's last contract had lower guaranteed/bonus money but higher yearly base amounts. It's reasonable to think that if a QB is taken #1 this year that the kid will make more than almost all vet QB's.

So yes, the argument why are you going to make Curry the highest paid LB in the NFL applies to other positions as well.

Great..the overall contracts still aren't comparable but be honest about it, LB is not a valuable position.

Chiefnj2
02-16-2009, 03:28 PM
Just looking at guaranteed money is idiotic for QBs. They aren't running backs. Manning, Roethlisberger, McNabb all got over 100 million in their contracts. Ryan wasn't even close to that.

You never look at the entire contract. The end years are always voidable, have buyouts, impossible base salaries, etc.

Mecca
02-16-2009, 03:29 PM
You never look at the entire contract. The end years are always voidable, have buyouts, impossible base salaries, etc.

Yea I'm sure the Colts are just going to cut Manning...

Chiefnj2
02-16-2009, 04:07 PM
Sanchezites are slinging the BS on every topic these days. Top draft picks don't get paid more than good vets at their respective positions, USC doesn't have any talent on offense, Sanchez has no weaknesses, etc.

88TG88
02-16-2009, 04:50 PM
Sanchezites are slinging the BS on every topic these days. Top draft picks don't get paid more than good vets at their respective positions, USC doesn't have any talent on offense, Sanchez has no weaknesses, etc.

I prefer Sanchezians, but thats just me.

Rigodan
02-16-2009, 05:15 PM
Questions with Sanchez - experience, hasn't had to come from behind and is surrounded by lots of talent, seems to get happy feet a little, I think he holds the ball a little low once he starts dancing around, doesn't have a great arm but has better touch than Stafford.

Why does everyone think "happy feet" is a bad thing. It's not. Peyton Manning is well known for the way his feet don't stay still. Footwork is an important part of throwing mechanics and guys like Manning and Sanchez are adjusting their feet as much as possible so that they'll be able to throw as soon as they see a passing lane to an open reciever. Sanchez's "happy feet" are part of the reason he has such a quick release. Not a bad thing.

orange
02-16-2009, 08:39 PM
Sanchezites are slinging the BS on every topic these days. Top draft picks don't get paid more than good vets at their respective positions, USC doesn't have any talent on offense, Sanchez has no weaknesses, etc.

I prefer Sanchezians, but thats just me.

Sanchezters.

http://sidesalad.net/archives/ChesterCheetah.jpg

melbar
02-17-2009, 12:15 AM
Great..the overall contracts still aren't comparable but be honest about it, LB is not a valuable position.

Tell that to the Steelers and Ravens.:)

Mecca
02-17-2009, 12:16 AM
Tell that to the Steelers and Ravens.:)

How many high drafted LB's do the Steelers have? Or the Ravens for that matter...

melbar
02-17-2009, 12:24 PM
How many high drafted LB's do the Steelers have? Or the Ravens for that matter...

Who cares where they were drafted? You said LB isnt a valuable position. I think LB's are the most important position on their D's. Thats like saying Brady was taken in the 6th so... bla bla bla. Even if historically Good LB's have been found late that doesnt negate a talented player at a key position being there early. Merriman was a great prospect and he was drafted pretty high. Outside of QB and LT there arent a lot of typically highly drafted positions available. Curry is better than any of the DE's, WR, DT's available this year and our LB play is awefull. Like I said earlier with more in depth explaination of my point, I think Curry would be the next best option if both QB's are gone, and would make a positive impact on this 32nd ranked D.

Rigodan
02-17-2009, 12:28 PM
Tell that to the Steelers and Ravens.:)

Steelers and Ravens play a 3-4. What position on defense do the Titans, Giants, and Vikings, who play a 4-3 like us, (right now) value?