Chiefs What If the Chiefs STILL Took Stafford/Sanchez With #3 Pick [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs What If the Chiefs STILL Took Stafford/Sanchez With #3 Pick

RINGLEADER

03-19-2009, 10:15 PM

How would you feel?

doomy3

03-19-2009, 10:17 PM

If the Chiefs take a LT, how would you feel?

We have both positions covered, so let's draft something else.

SBK

03-19-2009, 10:18 PM

JIMP

DeezNutz

03-19-2009, 10:19 PM

The implicit comparison between Albert and Cassel is probably not going to go over too well...

RINGLEADER

03-19-2009, 10:19 PM

cdcox

03-19-2009, 10:19 PM

JIMP

x2

DaneMcCloud

03-19-2009, 10:20 PM

I would feel very good.

DaneMcCloud

03-19-2009, 10:22 PM

Blick

03-19-2009, 10:22 PM

I wouldn't be happy, but it could possibly work out down the road, so I would roll with it.

doomy3

03-19-2009, 10:24 PM

The implicit comparison between Albert and Cassel is probably not going to go over too well...

LOL. Like I care.

The point still stands. It's not like Albert is the best tackle in the league, yet anyone who suggests we take a tackle with the pick, even though they could be on the field day one, is an idiot. Don't get me wrong, Albert is good and could be very good, but if you were ranking LTs in the NFL, he is probably ranked about the same place among among tackles as Cassel ranks among QBs.

DeezNutz

03-19-2009, 10:25 PM

From a regime that placed little value on the QB position to one that would do something like the OP suggests?

Pioli would have to host an informational meeting at Arrowhead to teach fans how to view a real NFL franchise.

doomy3

03-19-2009, 10:25 PM

Poor draft for defense.

There's no one else worthy on offense with the #3

In all honesty, if Stafford (and possibly Sanchez) are sitting at #3, the Chiefs trade back.

They need all the help they can get and this is a banner year for offensive lineman.

Losing the #34 really hurt in that regard.

Yep, I think if Stafford is there at 3, we trade back. I think we have a better chance at someone wanting to move up for a tackle than Sanchez though.

Gravedigger

03-19-2009, 10:27 PM

I would honestly not be suprised if we took Stafford at 3, then right after did the trade with Matt Cassell that way we got our guy and we picked up picks to boot. The only wild card in this would be Detroit.

DeezNutz

03-19-2009, 10:28 PM

LOL. Like I care.

The point still stands. It's not like Albert is the best tackle in the league, yet anyone who suggests we take a tackle with the pick, even though they could be on the field day one, is an idiot. Don't get me wrong, Albert is good and could be very good, but if you were ranking LTs in the NFL, he is probably ranked about the same place among among tackles as Cassel ranks among QBs.

Yeah...probably pretty accurate. Both middle of the packish at this very moment.

Obviously, Albert being a n00b completely skews this, though. Dude looks like he's going to be an elite LT.

I don't think even the most ardent Cassel supporters think he's going to develop into an elite QB. He might end up being very good, but elite...

cdcox

03-19-2009, 10:30 PM

Yep, I think if Stafford is there at 3, we trade back. I think we have a better chance at someone wanting to move up for a tackle than Sanchez though.

But with all the QB talent locked up (Cassel, Sanchez, Stafford and presumably Cutler) some team will give up more for one of our two QBs than they would for the generic #3.

keg in kc

03-19-2009, 10:32 PM

I'd be fine with it. I don't think there's any chance they do it, though. Just a gut feeling.

BryanBusby

03-19-2009, 10:32 PM

We'd have 3 decent QBs instead of 0 if we did that. In other words, the anti Herm.

doomy3

03-19-2009, 10:34 PM

But with all the QB talent locked up (Cassel, Sanchez, Stafford and presumably Cutler) some team will give up more for one of our two QBs than they would for the generic #3.

Yeah, that's definitely a huge gamble though if you're talking about actually drafting one to trade, especially if Pioli isn't sold on Sanchez being his QB.

I am under the assumption that is the case since he traded for Cassel, but I could be wrong. I don't think he would have given up the second to acquire a QB if he would be good with Sanchez. Especially with the way he values second round picks.

You would have to think that if we actually draft Sanchez that the QB who would be traded is Cassel because otherwise we would just trade the pick when we're on the clock.

FAX

03-19-2009, 10:36 PM

It wouldn't surprise me.

I'm reminded of something Pioli said in one of his first interviews after joining the Chiefs organization. He said that it would be his responsibility to, not only improve the team in the short-term, but to ensure the long-term stability of the club. I am paraphrasing, but that's the gist of his point.

FAX

cdcox

03-19-2009, 10:42 PM

Yeah, that's definitely a huge gamble though if you're talking about actually drafting one to trade, especially if Pioli isn't sold on Sanchez being his QB.

I am under the assumption that is the case since he traded for Cassel, but I could be wrong. I don't think he would have given up the second to acquire a QB if he would be good with Sanchez. Especially with the way he values second round picks.

You would have to think that if we actually draft Sanchez that the QB who would be traded is Cassel because otherwise we would just trade the pick when we're on the clock.

Actually, it's not hard to imagine a case where the price the Pats were asking for Cassel was just too low to pass up. Depending on how the Cutler situation pans out and how Sanchez grades out by Pioli and company, the best value for the #3 may be to draft Sanchez and deal Cassel. Any thing better than the #34 pick would be free value.

doomy3

03-19-2009, 10:45 PM

Actually, it's not hard to imagine a case where the price for Sanchez was just too low to pass up. Depending on how the Cutler situation pans out and how Sanchez grades out by Pioli and company, the best value for the #3 may be to draft Sanchez and deal Cassel. Any thing better than the #34 pick would be free value.

Yeah, I see what you are saying and I assume you mean the price for Cassel was too low to pass up.

Pioli values second round picks so much though that it's hard to imagine him trading one that is basically a first for a QB if he was sold on the QB at the top of the draft, expecially when that's where the value lies in this draft.

Who knows though, I guess we will see.

cdcox

03-19-2009, 10:49 PM

Yeah, I see what you are saying and I assume you mean the price for Cassel was too low to pass up.

Pioli values second round picks so much though that it's hard to imagine him trading one that is basically a first for a QB if he was sold on the QB at the top of the draft, expecially when that's where the value lies in this draft.

Who knows though, I guess we will see.

Yeah, Cassel.

Well, trading a 2nd rounder for a 1st rounder is about as much value as you can expect to get. And if Pioli was aware of the other trades for Cassel in the works, he would have known the value was there to pull the trigger on him before any other team could.

DaneMcCloud

03-19-2009, 10:50 PM

LOL. Like I care.

The point still stands. It's not like Albert is the best tackle in the league, yet anyone who suggests we take a tackle with the pick, even though they could be on the field day one, is an idiot. Don't get me wrong, Albert is good and could be very good, but if you were ranking LTs in the NFL, he is probably ranked about the same place among among tackles as Cassel ranks among QBs.

So, Top Ten?

So in your scenario, Albert is a Top Ten left tackle yet the Chiefs should consider drafting another with the #3 spot?

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting your post.

doomy3

03-19-2009, 10:56 PM

So, Top Ten?

So in your scenario, Albert is a Top Ten left tackle yet the Chiefs should consider drafting another with the #3 spot?

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting your post.

No, I don't think they should draft another tackle at #3. But I think that is every bit as feasible as drafting another QB at #3.

DaneMcCloud

03-19-2009, 11:12 PM

No, I don't think they should draft another tackle at #3. But I think that is every bit as feasible as drafting another QB at #3.

I don't.

QB's have an enormous amount of value in the NFL. Left tackles after they've been drafted, don't.

The Chiefs could take Stafford and have him sit on the bench for two years. Cassel may have racked up enough stats to get at least another 2nd rounder (or more) when Stafford's ready to step in.

It's a gamble that great teams make.

evolve27

03-19-2009, 11:15 PM

JIMP

What's this mean again? Actually i never knew, ima noob :huh:

Spicy McHaggis

03-19-2009, 11:29 PM

What's this mean again? Actually i never knew, ima noob :huh:

Jizz In My Pants

Reerun_KC

03-19-2009, 11:30 PM

Jizz In My Pants

Big and Spicy style...

Reaper16

03-19-2009, 11:30 PM

LOL. Like I care.

The point still stands. It's not like Albert is the best tackle in the league, yet anyone who suggests we take a tackle with the pick, even though they could be on the field day one, is an idiot. Don't get me wrong, Albert is good and could be very good, but if you were ranking LTs in the NFL, he is probably ranked about the same place among among tackles as Cassel ranks among QBs.
There is this term called "upside." You know, how much a player is projected to improve over the course of his play. Albert has an awful lot of upside as an LT, just like Stafford and Sanchez have an awful lot of upside at the QB position.

Cassel is not said to have close to the amount of upside.

tonyetony

03-19-2009, 11:33 PM

No matter how long you guys wring your hands and gnash your teeth we're going into the season with Cassel #1 and Thiggy #2. Save your energy to bitch about it later........if you need to.

tonyetony

03-19-2009, 11:36 PM

we might draft a qb in the late rounds you can really cry about...that's it end of story.

'Hamas' Jenkins

03-19-2009, 11:48 PM

It would be the best case scenario given the available value.

dj56dt58

03-19-2009, 11:59 PM

we got cassell to be our qb now and for the future..drafting a qb with the #3 would be stupid

Mecca

03-20-2009, 12:08 AM

Wouldn't bother me, they could do far worse.

Reaper16

03-20-2009, 12:11 AM

I think that its the best option at #3.

dj56dt58

03-20-2009, 12:24 AM

I think that its the best option at #3.

no..its not. Everette Brown is

Mecca

03-20-2009, 12:28 AM

Taking guys 10 spots to early is obviously brilliant.

Reaper16

03-20-2009, 12:38 AM

no..its not. Everette Brown is
/flabbergasted

ChiefsCountry

03-20-2009, 12:42 AM

It would be Pioli first smart move of his tenure as GM.

Mecca

03-20-2009, 12:43 AM

It would be Pioli first smart move of his tenure as GM.

How dare you question the great Pioli!

CoMoChief

03-20-2009, 01:03 AM

Kyle DeLexus

03-20-2009, 01:21 AM

Considering we gave up a 2nd rd pick for Cassell, I doubt he's just a stop gap QB. If he continues to succeed as he was in NE, he will be here for a while. And you dont take a QB with the overall 3rd pick unless he's going to start and start soon, this isn't a 3 year on the bench thing and then start him when we trade Cassell.

Not gonna happen here folks.

Stafford just turned 21 on Feb. 7th. He could sit on the bench for three years he'd be 24 at the start of the season. Cassel is 26 now and will be 27 when the season starts. Why couldn't we draft Stafford let him learn for a year or two?

CoMoChief

03-20-2009, 02:02 AM

Stafford just turned 21 on Feb. 7th. He could sit on the bench for three years he'd be 24 at the start of the season. Cassel is 26 now and will be 27 when the season starts. Why couldn't we draft Stafford let him learn for a year or two?

A. Now that we have a QB, and many holes to fill, there are other positions in need, as well as we could use the #3 pick for trading down and getting more picks. Which in this draft where there's not a TRUE #1 overall pick and not really a star studded draft, trading down is probably the best option.

I believing in maximizing as much as you possibly can with what you have. #3 is a great position to be in. Not to mention coaches have said that this yr's QB crop is no better than 3rd rd. Not really worth spending a #3 overall pick on.

We dont have a 2nd rd pick, so to help the defense are we just all a sudden gonna go out and spend spend spend on defense now? we need lots of help on defense and Oline. I dont think (this yr) drafting a QB first rd is smart when you spent your 2nd on one. There shouldnt even be an argument on this.

Dylan

03-20-2009, 02:22 AM

Pioli is frequently called a genious -- and rightfully so.

Among the numerous books and story lines written about Pioli --It would surprise me if he held on to the Chiefs third pick in the draft. Pioli will gladly trade Tony Gonzalez and Larry Johnson -- team spirit means the most to him.

In each of the last five seasons, the depth and versatility of New England's roster helped overcome key injuries to win five straight AFC East titles. The Patriots have used an average of 40 different starters over the last five seasons, and claimed two NFL records for success in that category.

In 2005, the Patriots set a post-merger league record for a division champion by utilizing 45 different starters. In 2003, the Patriots won Super Bowl XXXVIII despite using 42 different starters, the most in league history by a Super Bowl champion.

In 2004, the Patriots employed 40 different starters as they won their second consecutive Super Bowl, and in 2006 won their fourth straight AFC East title while using 39 different starters. Last season, the Patriots tied the all-time NFL record with 21 different players scoring touchdowns. Of the 53 players on the Patriots' Super Bowl XLII roster, 43 were acquired after the team's first championship in 2001 and 31 were acquired since the team's third title in 2004.

The Patriots have used an effective combination of free agent signings, trades and draft picks to acquire championship-caliber players. In 2007, six Patriots players drafted by Belichick and Pioli were selected to the Pro Bowl and were named to the Associated Press All-Pro first or second teams.

Those elite players came from a wide variety of draft positions – Tom Brady (sixth round), Dan Koppen (fifth round), Matt Light (second round), Logan Mankins (first round), Asante Samuel (fourth round) and Vince Wilfork (first round). Since 2000, Belichick/Pioli draft choices have earned one Associated Press Most Valuable Player Award (Brady), three Super Bowl MVP awards (Brady and Deion Branch) and 15 Pro Bowl berths (Seymour 5, Brady 4, Light 2, Koppen 1, Mankins 1, Samuel 1 and Wilfork 1).

Veteran free agents signed by Belichick and Pioli include defensive co-captain Rodney Harrison, outside linebacker Mike Vrabel and three-time Pro Bowl special teams captain Larry Izzo among dozens of other contributors to New England's championship squads. New England's trades have netted improvement in drafting position that led to the ability to exchange draft picks for key veterans such as Randy Moss, who set the NFL record with 23 touchdown receptions in 2007, Wes Welker, who tied for the NFL lead with a team-record 112 receptions in 2007, and Corey Dillon, who set the Patriots' single-season rushing record in 2004.

Pioli was honored with Executive of the Year honors from national media outlets following the 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2007 seasons. Following the Patriots' first Super Bowl victory, the Dallas Morning News picked him as the league's top executive. Two seasons later, following Super Bowl XXXVIII, he earned Executive of the Year honors from Pro Football Weekly (voted on by the media), The Sporting News (voted on by NFL executives) and Sports Illustrated. In 2004, Pioli's accolades included the NFLPA's Award for Executive Achievement and NFL Executive of the Year awards from The Sporting News, USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle and SI.com. In 2007, Pioli again earned Executive of the Year honors from Pro Football Weekly, the Dallas Morning News and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Hammock Parties

03-20-2009, 02:24 AM

If we draft a QB at #3 and rape someone with Cassel, Pioli is going to look a total fucking genius.

Sweet Daddy Hate

03-20-2009, 03:37 AM

How would you feel?

Like we were valuing the most undervalued position in the last 35+ years of Kansas City Chiefs History.

Like we finally accepted where true, on-field leadership of a football team lies.

Like we finally understood that the stretch between your "#1 QB" and your "#2 QB" was best measured in inches rather than miles.

And like this fan-base was finally going to get a long-overdue colonic to remove the mountains of shit sandwiches that it has been force-fed for far too long.

:shrug:

T-post Tom

03-20-2009, 03:51 AM

What's this mean again? Actually i never knew, ima noob :huh:

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4pXfHLUlZf4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4pXfHLUlZf4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

Sweet Daddy Hate

03-20-2009, 04:00 AM

T-post Tom

03-20-2009, 04:15 AM

How did those youngin's mine the idea of going "Pet Shop Boys" on that shit?!
LMAO

& along those lines...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FgXvR97Wk6g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FgXvR97Wk6g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

EyePod

03-20-2009, 05:36 AM

PISSED OFF.

philfree

03-20-2009, 05:53 AM

We don't have any clue to what Pioli is gonna do. If it were me doing the picking and Stafford was there at our 1st pick and no other team will trade up I pick Stafford.

PhilFree:arrow:

the Talking Can

03-20-2009, 06:17 AM

preface: i don't believe we are trading cassel

but it would be hilariously dramatic to be in the position of having stafford available at #3 and receive calls for both he and Cassel...

i mean, if Pioli rented Cassel for a month and then turned the 34th pick into a first rounder and another pick, plus Vrabel, you'd have to be in awe of his cajones....

hell, i like having a GM where this is even in the realm of fantasy....most of the time Carl did nothing....

MahiMike

03-20-2009, 06:28 AM

I'd rather draft a kicker.

suds79

03-20-2009, 06:59 AM

If that happened, I'd feel they're simply picking the best player they feel available and I would expect somebody to be traded.

Just take the best player.

Molitoth

03-20-2009, 08:00 AM

I would be pissed off, unless they trade Cassel somewhere.

Mecca

03-20-2009, 08:02 AM

There are far worse things than having more than 1 QB...

Fish

03-20-2009, 08:22 AM

I don't.

QB's have an enormous amount of value in the NFL. Left tackles after they've been drafted, don't.

The Chiefs could take Stafford and have him sit on the bench for two years. Cassel may have racked up enough stats to get at least another 2nd rounder (or more) when Stafford's ready to step in.

It's a gamble that great teams make.

Last year Ryan got a $72M contract at the #3 spot.

Not that we couldn't afford it, but we'd be paying Stafford more than that to sit on the bench for 2 years. I can't see us doing that at #3. Not with today's rookie contracts. And I can't see many "great teams" making that gamble either. In fact, only once in the last 20 years has a team drafted a QB in the top 5 and sat him on the bench for 2 years. That being Phillip Rivers. Granted that turned out to be a good thing for SD, but it's not what most "great" teams do with a QB drafted top 5.

Mecca

03-20-2009, 08:24 AM

I'm pretty sure Steve McNair sat for awhile..

Coogs

03-20-2009, 08:29 AM

Palmer sat for 1 year behink Kitna. I'm not sure when the Bengals brought Kitna in from Seattle, but I don't recall him being there for a long time prior to the Bengals selecting Palmer.

Manila-Chief

03-20-2009, 08:30 AM

Was going to add a poll but evidently screwed it up. Not sure how to add one now.

Anyway, was going to offer:

Great move -- Hedge our bets for the future
Bad move -- Need help on defense with #3 pick
Bad move -- Need help elsewhere on offense with #3 pick
Bad move -- Need to get more picks with #3 pick

I would pick the last option. I think (just my opinion nothing to back it up) Pioli will trade down if he has a partner. Doesn't look good in finding one, but it seems like the best choice. We do need more picks and there doesn't seem to be a real $75 million type guy at the top of the draft in a position of our need.

Yeah...probably pretty accurate. Both middle of the packish at this very moment.

Obviously, Albert being a n00b completely skews this, though. Dude looks like he's going to be an elite LT.

I don't think even the most ardent Cassel supporters think he's going to develop into an elite QB. He might end up being very good, but elite...

Just a question ... how do we know if either will become elite? They both only have one year of starting experience. With the right supporting cast they both may become HOF ... but, then again both may just be adequate for their position. My point ... we don't really know.

I'm hoping that Cassel just got over looked in college and that he does have the talent, skills, the "it" factor to become "elite." But, it's yet to be determined how far he can go because he does not have the game experience.

No, I don't think they should draft another tackle at #3. But I think that is every bit as feasible as drafting another QB at #3.

I agree ... the only reason I'd take a OT at #3 is if there were no other player of value there. It costs big $$$ at that draft position.

No matter how long you guys wring your hands and gnash your teeth we're going into the season with Cassel #1 and Thiggy #2. Save your energy to bitch about it later........if you need to.

I agree Cassel is #1 or they would not have made the trade. But, how do we know that Thigpen will be #2? We have a new coaching staff. They may ... note I said may ... determine that Croyle is #2??? I mean they don't have the background of experiencing his injuries.

Or, Pioli/Haley may draft a QB in the 6th. round and he may become #2???

we might draft a qb in the late rounds you can really cry about...that's it end of story.

I think it's very likely they will draft a QB in the late rounds. It's something Pioli likes to do.

Stafford just turned 21 on Feb. 7th. He could sit on the bench for three years he'd be 24 at the start of the season. Cassel is 26 now and will be 27 when the season starts. Why couldn't we draft Stafford let him learn for a year or two?

Pioli is frequently called a genious -- and rightfully so.

Among the numerous books and story lines written about Pioli --It would surprise me if he held on to the Chiefs third pick in the draft. Pioli will gladly trade Tony Gonzalez and Larry Johnson -- team spirit means the most to him.

But, he is a genious because Tom Brady is ... well, Tom Brady. Had he lived up to his draft status ... they probably never win that 1st. SB and after a couple years all of them get fired.

The article talks about all the starters on each squad ... but, the one constant was Tom Brady. If a team has it's core players in place you can plug and play. One evidence of that is the fact that they didn't win a SB this past year. With Brady in there, they just may have. Point, you have to have excellent players at key positions.

We don't have any clue to what Pioli is gonna do. If it were me doing the picking and Stafford was there at our 1st pick and no other team will trade up I pick Stafford.
PhilFree:arrow:

Ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner especially your first statement ... none of us has a clue. I've said in another thread that it might be wise to pick a QB since the value doesn't seem to be there at #3, and if Cassel is not the guy, we will not get this high of a pick (unless we trade for future picks and the other team totally tanks) in a long while if ever. But, I know I'm not an evaluator of QB talent (like Mecca) but I'd take Sanchez.

preface: i don't believe we are trading cassel

but it would be hilariously dramatic to be in the position of having stafford available at #3 and receive calls for both he and Cassel...

i mean, if Pioli rented Cassel for a month and then turned the 34th pick into a first rounder and another pick, plus Vrabel, you'd have to be in awe of his cajones....

hell, i like having a GM where this is even in the realm of fantasy....most of the time Carl did nothing....

I fully agree. Cassel is Pioli's guy. Why would he trade him. Also, I agree wiht the part of renting Cassel. Pioli/Haley are trying to put the "team" culture into place. No player is greater than the team. So, it would not be out of character for him to upgrade the team and trade Cassel. I don't think it will happen but anything is possible.

Your last statement is right on!!! It seems we do have a GM who plans years in advance and knows how to build a team.

bowener

03-20-2009, 08:31 AM

I would go pop some popcorn and wait to see who (and for what) we trade Cassel to!

Fish

03-20-2009, 08:31 AM

I'm pretty sure Steve McNair sat for awhile..

He started 6 games his first 2 seasons. Had action in 12 games. Over 1700 yds.

Chiefnj2

03-20-2009, 08:31 AM

KC can't sit a top 3 QB for two years and pay Cassel between 25 and 30 million for those two years.

Manila-Chief

03-20-2009, 08:37 AM

KC can't sit a top 3 QB for two years and pay Cassel between 25 and 30 million for those two years.

Sure we can. Just look at all the cap room we have. Will we? I agree with you ... don't think we will. It's just not a smart thing to do, and especially since Pioli believes he can get QB's in the late rounds.

L.A. Chieffan

03-20-2009, 08:50 AM

trade #3 for unconditional #1 pick in next years draft so we can get TEBOW

Brock

03-20-2009, 08:51 AM

I believe they probably would draft Stafford if he somehow was available at the number 3 spot. They probably have other players rated above Sanchez on their board though.

Coogs

03-20-2009, 08:53 AM

especially since Pioli believes he can get QB's in the late rounds.

Kind of like Denver believing that you can always draft a Terrell Davis in the late round. they have had some decent late round picks, but not really another TD. Eventually they took Portis early.

Not exactly the same scenario, but similar. Pioli had the luxury of having Bledsoe being the starter when they drafted Brady late.

Manila-Chief

03-20-2009, 08:54 AM

The only reason I would be interested in either Sanchez/Stafford is their possible greater up side than (possible lack of it) for Cassel. I know we truly don't know which way either will go. If Cassel becomes elite, we trade Sanchez/Stafford ... if he doesn't we have another possible genuine replacement.

No, I think Pioli will not take a QB at #3.

My illustration for the above statement is Tom Brady (Peyton, Elway, Montana, etc.). Having an elite QB just makes the whole team better. Remember the days of the Chiefs "rent a QB" and getting only okay results? Suppose the Chiefs had taken one of the HOF QB's ... when was that ... '83 or '84? Just maybe Marty would have won a couple of SB's. Pardon my dreaming.

Coogs

03-20-2009, 08:56 AM

I would still like to see Detroit get Cutler with the #20 and #33 picks. That scenario pretty much puts both QB's there at #3, and we know Denver has a woody for Cassel.

Dave Lane

03-20-2009, 08:59 AM

I'd be fine with it.

bowener

03-20-2009, 09:05 AM

I was wondering if we wouldn't draft the best QB at #3 as a way of holding them ransom over the entire NFL. Then, when a team inquires about a QB trade, we offer up MC for a late first rounder value (maybe somewhere in the 20's value), since demand has gone up and product is now one player less.

Manila-Chief

03-20-2009, 09:17 AM

Kind of like Denver believing that you can always draft a Terrell Davis in the late round. they have had some decent late round picks, but not really another TD. Eventually they took Portis early.

Not exactly the same scenario, but similar. Pioli had the luxury of having Bledsoe being the starter when they drafted Brady late.

Great point!!! Had Brady just been an okay QB, maybe they don't win any SB's. In all likelyhood, Pioli will not get that lucky again. Cassel played well last year (like the Donks RB's) but he didn't lead them to the SB. For our sakes, I sure hope he is Pioli's 2nd. miracle!!! Yes, he may become better than Brady but he can, also, be just average with our supporting cast.

htismaqe

03-20-2009, 10:19 AM

At this point, I'm just ready to SEE what they do.

I don't care who they draft, I just want to see who it is.

Ultra Peanut

03-20-2009, 10:30 AM

Better than a lot of the other options.

OnTheWarpath15

03-20-2009, 11:02 AM

KC can't sit a top 3 QB for two years and pay Cassel between 25 and 30 million for those two years.

Actually, yes we can.

First, we have the cap space.

Two, unless we sign Cassel to a long term deal, he won't be getting anywhere near $25-$30M for the next 2 years.

We pay him $14M this year, and as an RFA next year we can sign him to the highest tender, which will be under $3M, and either play him, or trade him for the 1st/3rd combo that we're entitled to.

PastorMikH

03-20-2009, 11:14 AM

I didn't want to see them draft Stafford or Sanchez at #3 BEFORE we got Cassel. So I really wouldn't want to draft one of them at #3 now.

I was thinking the other day how ironic it would be if they drafted Curry and Curry turned out to be the stud everyone is saying he will be. The last time we had a top to bottom management shakeup, a franchise/game-changing HOF LB that we all love was selected as our first pick.

BigCatDaddy

03-20-2009, 11:22 AM

SAUTO

03-20-2009, 11:25 AM

BigCatDaddy

03-20-2009, 11:30 AM

I SAID the exact same thing in another thread yesterday:D

Great Minds!

Mr. Krab

03-20-2009, 11:36 AM

As long as they HAVE a plan, then i'm fine. The previous administration flew by the seat of their pants far too often and screwed up constantly.

Chiefnj2

03-20-2009, 12:13 PM

ChiefsCountry

03-20-2009, 12:19 PM

Dylan

03-20-2009, 12:22 PM

The Chiefs will win a Super Bowl within five years... "...With an effective combination of free signings and good drafts."

I think my predictions have been on so far... No? LMAO

Chiefnj2

03-20-2009, 12:24 PM

Next year though he wouldnt be franchised, he would be a RFA.

I'm missing something.

"The player's original team maintains the Right of First Refusal and First Round Draft Selection and Third Round Draft Selection (both from the team with which he signs) if the team tenders an offer of one year at $2.792 million OR at least 110% of the player's prior year’s salary -- whichever is greater."

How is he not entitled to a 10% raise from this years salary?

orange

03-20-2009, 12:31 PM

That makes no sense whatsoever. I agree with the 14.6 this year. AFAIK, if he is franchised a second time he doesn't get 3 million, he gets last years salary plus 10% or something like that.

I'm missing something.

"The player's original team maintains the Right of First Refusal and First Round Draft Selection and Third Round Draft Selection (both from the team with which he signs) if the team tenders an offer of one year at $2.792 million OR at least 110% of the player's prior year’s salary -- whichever is greater."

How is he not entitled to a 10% raise from this years salary?

Chiefnj2 is absolutely right. I went into this at great length the other night on the Draft Forum (CP Mock Draft thread).

keg in kc

03-20-2009, 12:34 PM

Next year though he wouldnt be franchised, he would be a RFA.He can't be an RFA, he has more than 3 years accrued service. The only way to prevent him from being an unrestricted free agent next year is to tag him or sign him long term.

'Hamas' Jenkins

03-20-2009, 12:35 PM

He can't be a RFA, he has more than 3 years accrued service.

Not w/ the expiration of the CBA. It reverts to 6.

orange

03-20-2009, 12:35 PM

He can't be a RFA, he has more than 3 years accrued service.

That changes in an Uncapped Final League Year After a Capped Year.

You need six years accrued to be UFA.

It's wacky, yes... but true.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can download the CBA here if you want to bend your brain around it: http://www.nflplayers.com/user/template.aspx?fmid=181&lmid=622&pid=0&type=l

keg in kc

03-20-2009, 12:36 PM

Oh, right. That's what I get for posting from work.

tboss27

03-20-2009, 12:40 PM

I think this is why we don't have Cassell inked to a long term deal right now. If he is still franchised at draft time, other teams might think we would be willing to take a QB at the #3 spot and thus raise the value of the pick to those who like Stafford. If we have Cassell signed to a 5- 7 year deal, we are no threat to take a QB with that pick.

My thoughts exactly. I don't think there is any chance we take a QB, Cassel is our guy. Pioli is smart enough to wait on a long term deal though because he doesn't want to give away our hand, if we can find someone in need of a QB to overpay for our #3 Pioli will make the deal, if not we will prolly go Curry/Raji w/ the pick.

Kyle DeLexus

03-20-2009, 12:51 PM

Chiefnj2 is absolutely right. I went into this at great length the other night on the Draft Forum (CP Mock Draft thread).

"If there is no new agreement before the 2010 season, that season will be played without a salary cap under rules that also limit the free agency rights of the players."

"The collective bargaining agreement says these franchised players will be entitled to a 10 percent raise in 2010. But they will not be allowed to become unrestricted free agents."

So yes they will become restricted FA's, but they will be doing so for what they make this year plus 10%.

Sweet Daddy Hate

03-20-2009, 01:07 PM

& along those lines...

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FgXvR97Wk6g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

LMAO That was awesome.

trade #3 for unconditional #1 pick in next years draft so we can get TEBOW

I wouldn't be opposed to the Chiefs having their own "Radio" on the sidelines, but do we really want to pay millions to have one?

Actually, yes we can.

First, we have the cap space.

Two, unless we sign Cassel to a long term deal, he won't be getting anywhere near $25-$30M for the next 2 years.

We pay him $14M this year, and as an RFA next year we can sign him to the highest tender, which will be under $3M, and either play him, or trade him for the 1st/3rd combo that we're entitled to.

Wood. Rep.

orange

03-20-2009, 01:09 PM

Wood. Rep.

Are you paying attention at all? You just repped a message that's simply wrong.

Cassel will cost $16 million to re-sign in 2010.

Sweet Daddy Hate

03-20-2009, 01:21 PM

Are you paying attention at all? You just repped a message that's completely wrong.

Cassel will cost $16 million to re-sign in 2010.

I wasn't agreeing with, or giving a damn about the money. You build a team properly, you win consistently, and if you compete and win championships, you garner more revenue.

Fuck the money; do it and build it right.

Fish

03-20-2009, 01:28 PM

Actually, yes we can.

First, we have the cap space.

Two, unless we sign Cassel to a long term deal, he won't be getting anywhere near $25-$30M for the next 2 years.

We pay him $14M this year, and as an RFA next year we can sign him to the highest tender, which will be under $3M, and either play him, or trade him for the 1st/3rd combo that we're entitled to.

Technically we can.... I just can't justify it very easily...

Last year Ryan got $35M in guaranteed money. If we draft QB at #3, you can expect that Stafford/Sanchez would get a little more than that from us. Add that to what we can expect to pay Cassel just for this year alone, and we're talking about over $50M guaranteed in the QB position alone.

With the number of holes on the rest of the team, I can't see them taking a gamble that big on one position. I'd happily accept it if they did though.....

beach tribe

03-20-2009, 02:39 PM

Chiefnj2

03-20-2009, 02:50 PM

There's no guarantee that Stafford, or Sanchez would be available at 3 so Pioli may have been covering his ass in case that happened, and may still pick one if they are available, and then deal Cassel. I doubt it, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

If he deals him it would probably be after this years draft. If a team wanted him on draft day they would have to have 14.6 available under the cap (some can, some can't) and be willing to pay him that amount guaranteed without a long term deal in place. I don't see that happening on draft day.

beach tribe

03-20-2009, 03:08 PM

If he deals him it would probably be after this years draft. If a team wanted him on draft day they would have to have 14.6 available under the cap (some can, some can't) and be willing to pay him that amount guaranteed without a long term deal in place. I don't see that happening on draft day.

Tampa has that kind of scratch, and wants Cassel pretty bad.

ncCHIEFfan

03-20-2009, 03:25 PM

I wasn't agreeing with, or giving a damn about the money. You build a team properly, you win consistently, and if you compete and win championships, you garner more revenue.

**** the money; do it and build it right.

Thats what I am talking about!!!:clap:

Sweet Daddy Hate

03-20-2009, 03:39 PM

Thats what I am talking about!!!:clap:

Here's another one:

For years I believed that Carl was behind the decision to bench Gannon over Grbac in the 1st round of the 97 play offs. I now of course know that it was Marty, but it doesn't change the theory of following scenario:

You have a contracted starter who get's hurt in week 4, and his replacement steps in and the team catches fire.
You win the AFC West, and you're on your way to the play offs with home field advantage.
Your injured starter is now healthy, but has missed well over half the season. The team has come to trust and to operate like a well-oiled machine under the leadership of your #2.

So it's play off time. If you start your #2, you're in breach of contract with your starter, and could be penalized millions. You would also have a better chance of winning your two play off games on the way to the Super Bowl.

What do you do?

That's right; you eat every penny of that fucking contract, and you WIN. You do so, because the sales of merchandise and more season tickets for the following year will MORE than recoup the loss of benching your starter.

Chiefnj2

03-20-2009, 03:45 PM

Tampa has that kind of scratch, and wants Cassel pretty bad.

I thought they wanted Cutler.

orange

03-20-2009, 03:46 PM

Here's another one:

How about this?

Your starting QB is a high first round pick; you sign him to a new contract at the beginning of the season; he gets hurt early in the season and is replaced by an unheralded backup; the backup takes you deep into the playoffs; next season, before playing a game, you eat the former starter's contract and trade him away instead of keeping a talented, high-payed 1st-round pick on your bench as a backup.

What kind of ill-run idiotic losing organization would do such a thing? Don't they know the value of a QB? Don't they know the difference between your starter and your backup should be measured in inches?

Coogs

03-20-2009, 03:46 PM

I thought they wanted Cutler.

That's what I thought too.

Sweet Daddy Hate

03-20-2009, 03:48 PM

How about this?

Your starting QB is a high first round pick; you sign him to a new contract at the beginning of the season; he gets hurt early in the season and is replaced by an unheralded backup; the backup takes you deep into the playoffs; next season, before playing a game, you eat the former starter's contract and trade him away instead of keeping a talented, high-payed 1st-round pick on your bench as a backup.

What kind of ill-run idiotic losing organization would do such a thing?

That's a straw man. You win the SB, you can do whatever the hell you want with WHO you want on that roster.
That's it, and there ain't no more.

orange

03-20-2009, 03:49 PM

I thought they wanted Cutler.

That's what I thought too.

They wanted Cassel - as bait to trade for Cutler. They may still want him - for the same purpose.

orange

03-20-2009, 03:51 PM

That's a straw man. You win the SB, you can do whatever the hell you want with WHO you want on that roster.
That's it, and there ain't no more.

Yeah, well the Straw Man now manages the Chiefs - and he's not going to pay a 1st round QB $50 million plus to sit on the bench.

Coogs

03-20-2009, 03:52 PM

They wanted Cassel - as bait to trade for Cutler. They may still want him - for the same purpose.

I've got to think Cutler is going to have to be the one moved first. It may be a 3-way deal that does not happen until draft day hinging on who is there at #3 for the Chiefs.

Sweet Daddy Hate

03-20-2009, 03:55 PM

Yeah, well the Straw Man now manages the Chiefs - and he's not going to pay a 1st round QB $50 million plus to sit on the bench.

You, like everyone else here, don't have a fucking CLUE as to what "my straw man" is going to do!

And if he HAS a clue, he'll grab the best understudy he can now, so that the Chiefs can begin the process of grooming him.

whoman69

03-20-2009, 09:13 PM

I don't see the Chiefs being able to move down if Stafford is still there unless a crapload of picks is offered. Jacksonville is the next team that might need a QB at #8. They wouldn't need to move up unless they believed that San Francisco or the Jets were going to move up. So that leaves our top pick at #8 best possible scenario, or #10 perhaps even #17.

milkman

03-21-2009, 03:54 AM

Reerun_KC

03-21-2009, 04:19 AM

Aaron Curry is not a Derrick Thomas.

Aaron Curry is a Donnie Edwards.

IF your lucky, More like a Derrick Johnson...

Sweet Daddy Hate

03-21-2009, 05:19 AM

Aaron Curry is not a Derrick Thomas.

Aaron Curry is a Donnie Edwards.

IF your lucky, More like a Derrick Johnson...

Damn straight.