PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Cassel or Sanchez?


Pages : [1] 2 3

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 06:45 PM
I realize that we are where we are, but the more I see about Sanchez, the more I'm afraid that a few years down the road, we may look back and realize that we passed up on the franchise guy that we've been looking for. I know that Cassel played ok last year, but is he a franchise guy? ...likely not. Thoughts?

milkman
04-11-2009, 06:48 PM
I bet that there hasn't been any discussion on this subject at all in the last month.

SPchief
04-11-2009, 06:49 PM
And we're off!

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 06:49 PM
Well, you can pass on it if you'd like.

chiefs1111
04-11-2009, 06:52 PM
I bet that there hasn't been any discussion on this subject at all in the last month.

Nah

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 06:54 PM
I realize that this has probably been chewed to pieces. I've always been in favor of going with the guy who has NFL experience...... Kinda rolled my eyes at the guys posting about the great hope of any draft quarterbacks. I've just had my mind changed.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 06:55 PM
Stafford over both. Between the two I'm really torn. Cassel is not a franchise guy and has less potential of developing into one, but sanchez has the potential I'm just not sure about him yet.

Dylan
04-11-2009, 06:58 PM
Cassel.

He won 11 NFL games. ;)

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 06:59 PM
Stafford over both. Between the two I'm really torn. Cassel is not a franchise guy and has less potential of developing into one, but sanchez has the potential I'm just not sure about him yet.

Finally a real comment thanks. Just curious if anybody else had some of the same thoughts. Mayock to me was crazy accurate on Cutler and several others. He is saying crazy stuff about Sanchez' arm, pocket presence, footwork..."tremendous set skills"...all that.

wild1
04-11-2009, 06:59 PM
Gee, I was hoping someone would start a thread about this

Bearcat2005
04-11-2009, 07:00 PM
Stafford over both. Between the two I'm really torn. Cassel is not a franchise guy and has less potential of developing into one, but sanchez has the potential I'm just not sure about him yet.

Based off only your assumptions pal. It seems to me that we need to see Cassel play another year (In a Chiefs uni) before we can evaluate him.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 07:00 PM
Cassell because of his wealth of experience in a difficult situation in which to succeed.

Furthermore, he likely gives us the best opportunity to win now. Add a leader to the defense, maybe an interior LB, and we're cooking with some serious gas.

Of course, we need another one of our offensive weapons to develop. Maybe Darling...

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:01 PM
Cassel. Is it possible he was just a product of the system?

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:01 PM
No one is responding because this argument occurs pretty much daily. The posters that would rather have Sanchez, of which I am one, are the vocal minority.

Bearcat2005
04-11-2009, 07:02 PM
Cassel. Is it possible he was just a product of the system?

Well of course yes, however with ONLY a second round pick at stake I'm willing to take the chance.

Bearcat2005
04-11-2009, 07:03 PM
Cassell because of his wealth of experience in a difficult situation in which to succeed.

Furthermore, he likely gives us the best opportunity to win now. Add a leader to the defense, maybe an interior LB, and we're cooking with some serious gas.

Of course, we need another one of our offensive weapons to develop. Maybe Darling...

THIS.

Rausch
04-11-2009, 07:03 PM
Cassel. Is it possible he was just a product of the system?

Yes...

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:04 PM
No one is responding because this argument occurs pretty much daily. The posters that would rather have Sanchez, of which I am one, are the vocal minority.

That's kinda the reason that I'm chiming in new about this.....I'm converting to the minority and wanted to talk about it again. I don't care if there are three of us who respond..

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:04 PM
THIS.
LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:05 PM
THIS.

You do understand he was making a tongue in cheek post right?

Bearcat2005
04-11-2009, 07:06 PM
You do understand he was making a tongue in cheek post right?

Yea wise ass....

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:07 PM
That's kinda the reason that I'm chiming in new about this.....I'm converting to the minority and wanted to talk about it again. I don't care if there are three of us who respond..

I think it's pretty simple, anyone who takes time to watch Sanchez and learn about him will love the guy. He has everything you look for in a QB in the intangibles area, he's as sound as they come with his mechanics and quick release and feet..

The only arguments against him are "he's short" and " he started 16 games" and of course for anyone that watched him play he doesn't remotely look like a 1 year starter.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:08 PM
Well of course yes, however with ONLY a second round pick at stake I'm willing to take the chance.

That's a good point. I'm not unhappy with Cassel....maybe a little indifferent until he proves himself. But I wasn't convinced about Sanchez either, only starting one year in college, then being touted as this incredible skill set dude. But I've got to see more stuff on this guy lately and think that he may be one of those freak Brady, Manning type guys who very likely may fall to Denver....Again..

milkman
04-11-2009, 07:12 PM
Cassell because of his wealth of experience in a difficult situation in which to succeed.

Furthermore, he likely gives us the best opportunity to win now. Add a leader to the defense, maybe an interior LB, and we're cooking with some serious gas.

Of course, we need another one of our offensive weapons to develop. Maybe Darling...

I don't know.

I think we should take a LT cause then we'd have two potential pro bowl LTs and have the best O-Line in the league.

Can't have enough pro bowl LTs.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 07:13 PM
I don't know.

I think we should take a LT cause then we'd have two potential pro bowl LTs and have the best O-Line in the league.

Can't have enough pro bowl LTs.

Also a winning philosophy.

You MUST build the line before doing anything else.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:15 PM
Based off only your assumptions pal. It seems to me that we need to see Cassel play another year (In a Chiefs uni) before we can evaluate him.

Not at all my friend. I feel that Cassel will be an ok QB in the league, not a franchise player. If you feel that there is a franchise QB when you pick in the draft you take them. Stafford would be a way to remove all doubt with me, but I'd more than likely take Sanchez over Cassel at this point. Next year's QB class will be full of spread QB's that will take more time to transition to the NFL. If you have any doubt about Cassel at all, you take a QB.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:16 PM
Well of course yes, however with ONLY a second round pick at stake I'm willing to take the chance.

If Sanchez becomes a franchise QB and Cassel is just ok everyone will have gladly given up both the 1st and 2nd round pick to have the franchise guy...

The picks for QB are not important to me, a franchise QB is worth more than anything. I'd rather have a franchise QB than a good QB and a OLB.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:16 PM
Also a winning philosophy.

You MUST build the line before doing anything else.

Don't forget you need a crazy athletic ILB for our new 3-4. One that will turn our defense around overnight!

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:17 PM
Not at all my friend. I feel that Cassel will be an ok QB in the league, not a franchise player. If you feel that there is a franchise QB when you pick in the draft you take them. Stafford would be a way to remove all doubt with me, but I'd more than likely take Sanchez over Cassel at this point. Next year's QB class will be full of spread QB's that will take more time to transition to the NFL. If you have any doubt about Cassel at all, you take a QB.

I've thought for a long time he would be Derek Anderson....

Hog Farmer
04-11-2009, 07:18 PM
I for one would welcome a Sanchez pic. I have a feeling that without a premium OL Cassel will not be in KC what he was in NE.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:19 PM
I've thought for a long time he would be Derek Anderson....

I told everyone last year that the Browns needed to trade Anderson while his value was high and turn it over to Brady. I feel the same way about him as I do about Cassel. He can be a good QB in the league, he just won't be a great one. Would make sense for a team like the Vikes.

TRR
04-11-2009, 07:20 PM
Cassel hands down over Sanchez. I like what Cassel brings to the table. He has the skillset to become a star in this league. His mechanics are very good, and he is chomping at the bit to be a starting QB. Anyone that doubts Cassel's ability to lead a team...pull up the game on NFL.com right after his Dad had just died. He is a leader, and a gamer in the most drastic of circumstances. Brett Favre's highlights after his Dad died are still being played over and over again on NFL Network. No mention of Cassel's play...

Sanchez has a lot of potential, but his one year of experience, and the fact that he couldn't put John David Booty on the bench scares me.

A month or so ago, you would have been killed if you talked about drafting Sanchez at #3. Now because of a good Pro Day, and some very likeable answers, he seems to be a hot commodity.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:20 PM
I for one would welcome a Sanchez pic. I have a feeling that without a premium OL Cassel will not be in KC what he was in NE.

Not to mention Randy Moss and Wes Welker

milkman
04-11-2009, 07:20 PM
Don't forget you need a crazy athletic ILB for our new 3-4. One that will turn our defense around overnight!

Two pro bowl LTs or a crazy athletic ILB that doesn't rush the QB.

Oh, how will we ever choose between them?

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:20 PM
I for one would welcome a Sanchez pic. I have a feeling that without a premium OL Cassel will not be in KC what he was in NE.

ROFL

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:21 PM
Cassel hands down over Sanchez. I like what Cassel brings to the table. He has the skillset to become a star in this league. His mechanics are very good, and he is chomping at the bit to be a starting QB. Sanchez has a lot of potential, but his one year of experience, and the fact that he couldn't put John David Booty on the bench scares me.

A month or so ago, you would have been killed if you talked about drafting Sanchez at #3. Now because of a good Pro Day, and some very likeable answers, he seems to be a hot commodity.

A month or so ago just as many people wanted to draft Sanchez.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:22 PM
Two pro bowl LTs or a crazy athletic ILB that doesn't rush the QB.

Oh, how will we ever choose between them?

You can't go wrong either way we get a Pro bowler at a position of need.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:23 PM
I'm just going to through this out there, Cassel didn't have a good Oline last year.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:23 PM
Cassel hands down over Sanchez. I like what Cassel brings to the table. He has the skillset to become a star in this league. His mechanics are very good, and he is chomping at the bit to be a starting QB. Sanchez has a lot of potential, but his one year of experience, and the fact that he couldn't put John David Booty on the bench scares me.

A month or so ago, you would have been killed if you talked about drafting Sanchez at #3. Now because of a good Pro Day, and some very likeable answers, he seems to be a hot commodity.

Matt Cassel played TE his senior year isn't that a bit scary....

I don't see any star potential there, I see league average QB.

And no offense or anything but Mark Sanchez has better mechanics and a much quicker release. And there are several of us that talked about Sanchez at 3 much much longer than a month ago.

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:23 PM
A month or so ago, you would have been killed if you talked about drafting Sanchez at #3. Now because of a good Pro Day, and some very likeable answers, he seems to be a hot commodity.
Some of us have been advocating Sanchez for like three months. Back then, those that were disagreeing were Thiggy supporters.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:23 PM
I'm just going to through this out there, Cassel didn't have a good Oline last year.

I don't really agree with this...Cassel gets sacked alot because he holds onto the ball to long.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:23 PM
I'm a total believer in the O-line priority. I think Trent Green was good, but sometimes great behind our line 4 years ago, as was LJ. I think that Cassel could probably be very good behind a stout line. I'm more in favor of building the line through free agency though if possible.

milkman
04-11-2009, 07:24 PM
Cassel hands down over Sanchez. I like what Cassel brings to the table. He has the skillset to become a star in this league. His mechanics are very good, and he is chomping at the bit to be a starting QB. Sanchez has a lot of potential, but his one year of experience, and the fact that he couldn't put John David Booty on the bench scares me.

A month or so ago, you would have been killed if you talked about drafting Sanchez at #3. Now because of a good Pro Day, and some very likeable answers, he seems to be a hot commodity.

Those of us that were pimping Sanchez as the #3 pick a month ago were being roundly critisized.

I still would pick him at #3 now.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:25 PM
I have a question for the guys who don't want to draft Curry, who do you favor? Smith/Monroe or Curry if you had to choose? I personally would lean towards the premier LT... I would also rather move one of the best OG prospects to ever come out back to OG rather than RT.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:25 PM
Matt Cassel played TE his senior year isn't that a bit scary.... NO

I don't see any star potential there, I see league average QB.

And no offense or anything but Mark Sanchez has better mechanics and a much quicker release. And there are several of us that talked about Sanchez at 3 much much longer than a month ago.

not scary to me, shows what an athlete he is, and shows he's got a competitive streak. he saw that he couldnt beat out leinart(fair or not) and wanted to play. shows his character IMO

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:25 PM
I don't really agree with this...Cassel gets sacked alot because he holds onto the ball to long.

I tend to agree with this...how does it go from one of the best lines in the league when Brady is running things then it's not good at all when Cassel takes over?

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:25 PM
Those of us that were pimping Sanchez as the #3 pick a month ago were being roundly critisized.

I still would pick him at #3 now.

I would too, unless you are 100% certain that Cassel is going to be a franchise guy you can't pass in this position. It's not a good top 5 he's one of the few players worth it and it's at that position.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:26 PM
I don't really agree with this...Cassel gets sacked alot because he holds onto the ball to long.

his o-line didnt do him ant favors. all you have to do is watch the games

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:27 PM
I tend to agree with this...how does it go from one of the best lines in the league when Brady is running things then it's not good at all when Cassel takes over?

Plus they resorted to putting him in shotgun quite often, if you look at his splits his under center numbers are pretty poor..

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:28 PM
his o-line didnt do him ant favors. all you have to do is watch the games

There were some issues with his line but he also held the ball to long. The guy does not setup and pump it out quickly by any degree.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:28 PM
I tend to agree with this...how does it go from one of the best lines in the league when Brady is running things then it's not good at all when Cassel takes over?

uuummmmmm different year, remember in brady's ONLY game WE(the team with the least amount of sacks EVER) got to him

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:29 PM
I tend to agree with this...how does it go from one of the best lines in the league when Brady is running things then it's not good at all when Cassel takes over?

Injurys.

Plus they resorted to putting him in shotgun quite often, if you look at his splits his under center numbers are pretty poor..

Happens to most young QB's.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:29 PM
Some of us have been advocating Sanchez for like three months. Back then, those that were disagreeing were Thiggy supporters.

i'm a thigpen supporter, but i wanted sanchez more than a month ago. now the "value" is better with a VERY comparable guy at #34 than #3

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:29 PM
I have a question for the guys who don't want to draft Curry, who do you favor? Smith/Monroe or Curry if you had to choose? I personally would lean towards the premier LT... I would also rather move one of the best OG prospects to ever come out back to OG rather than RT.
So you're in favor of having a Guard with a #15 overall contract? That is a savage misallocation of resources.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:30 PM
uuummmmmm different year, remember in brady's ONLY game WE(the team with the least amount of sacks EVER) got to him

Our DLine didn't look bad against the Patriots at all, with and without Brady... but I'm sure that was a fluke :rolleyes:

milkman
04-11-2009, 07:30 PM
I have a question for the guys who don't want to draft Curry, who do you favor? Smith/Monroe or Curry if you had to choose? I personally would lean towards the premier LT... I would also rather move one of the best OG prospects to ever come out back to OG rather than RT.

Fuck you and fuck your mother for not swallowing.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:31 PM
Injurys.



Happens to most young QB's.

Their line wasn't great by any means, but they weren't absolutely piss poor like some make them out to be. Cassel made them look much worse imo

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:31 PM
So you're in favor of having a Guard with a #15 overall contract? That is a savage misallocation of resources.

You realize there are OG's not as good as Albert making more than that right? The #15 pick isn't a crazy amount of money like you seem to believe...

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:31 PM
Our DLine didn't look bad against the Patriots at all, with and without Brady... but I'm sure that was a fluke :rolleyes:

i've watched most of the games. MANY times he had to step up when his back foot hit the ground

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:32 PM
Their line wasn't great by any means, but they weren't absolutely piss poor like some make them out to be. Cassel made them look much worse imo

Every young QB does that... but whos making it out to be piss poor?

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:32 PM
You realize there are OG's not as good as Albert making more than that right? The #15 pick isn't a crazy amount of money like you seem to believe...

worry about that 2nd contract

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:32 PM
Those of us that were pimping Sanchez as the #3 pick a month ago were being roundly critisized.

I still would pick him at #3 now.


That would be a major Quarterback controversy immediately.

By the way, has anybody said anything about Croyle? Released....2nd string, re-negotiate contract? anything?

Bwana
04-11-2009, 07:32 PM
Cassel

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:32 PM
Their line wasn't great by any means, but they weren't absolutely piss poor like some make them out to be. Cassel made them look much worse imo

I remember when we'd argue that Trent Green held the ball to long and there would always be some that would dispute it because he didn't get hit much...

KcMizzou
04-11-2009, 07:32 PM
As far as Cassel goes...

Pioli and McDaniels both obviously think pretty highly of the guy. And they are two of the guys who should know him best. The fact that they both wanted him is a good sign, IMO.

I'm more than willing to trust their judgment.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:32 PM
Every young QB does that... but whos making it out to be piss poor?

THIS

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:32 PM
Fuck you and fuck your mother for not swallowing.

For asking if you would rather have Curry or a LT?

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:33 PM
You realize there are OG's not as good as Albert making more than that right? The #15 pick isn't a crazy amount of money like you seem to believe...
How many of those teams are then also paying an LT top 3 money on top of that?

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:33 PM
worry about that 2nd contract

The one that will be smaller if hes been playing OG by that time?

milkman
04-11-2009, 07:33 PM
That would be a major Quarterback controversy immediately.

By the way, has anybody said anything about Croyle? Released....2nd string, re-negotiate contract? anything?

He'll break his vagina in camp.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:34 PM
That would be a major Quarterback controversy immediately.

By the way, has anybody said anything about Croyle? Released....2nd string, re-negotiate contract? anything?

There's no controversy...everyone knows you aren't keeping both of them. You decide right there do you flip Cassel right then to one of the QB hungry teams and turn your 34 into a 1st rounder plus maybe more...do you keep both of them for the year and decide after..Cassel is on a 1 year deal...

The only way you get no value is if you keep both Cassel totally blows and Sanchez is the guy next year. Even then you look smart because you protected yourself.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:34 PM
How many of those teams are then also paying an LT top 3 money on top of that?

probably most of them, the issue arises when he gets to the 2nd contract he will still WANT LT money

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:34 PM
How many of those teams are then also paying an LT top 3 money on top of that?

How many teams are the same?

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:35 PM
The one that will be smaller if hes been playing OG by that time?

he's played VERY WELL at LT he will want to be PAID like a LT

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:35 PM
Every young QB does that... but whos making it out to be piss poor?

That was mainly a shot at a friend of mine when we had this convo. He pretty much put Cassel's high sack number on NE's "piss poor" line. He reads the board but doesn't post, maybe he'll man up and reply. I'd say they had an average line though.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:35 PM
As far as Cassel goes...

Pioli and McDaniels both obviously think pretty highly of the guy. And they are two of the guys who should know him best. The fact that they both wanted him is a good sign, IMO.

I'm more than willing to trust their judgment.

Or it's that they're from the Belichick/Parcells style of thinking which prefers guys they personally like and are familiar with over anything else.

milkman
04-11-2009, 07:35 PM
For asking if you would rather have Curry or a LT?

For seriously suggesting LT at all.

God damn it, we have a franchise LT.

Why the hell does anyone think we need another?

Seriously, why?

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:37 PM
Or it's that they're from the Belichick/Parcells style of thinking which prefers guys they personally like and are familiar with over anything else.

parcells took bledsoe #1

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:37 PM
For seriously suggesting LT at all.

God damn it, we have a franchise LT.

Why the hell does anyone think we need another?

Seriously, why?

Our fan base is so ridiculously Oline obsessed. The only way anyone could realistically suggest to me taking an OT would be if the Chiefs somehow traded down twice and picked like 15th and got a ton of picks doing it.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:37 PM
he's played VERY WELL at LT he will want to be PAID like a LT

You really think hes going to hold a grudge and want paid like a LT when hes been playing OG for the last four years(at that time)? If hes a little bitch like that he should be traded then, but I don't see that happening. I think this is just a lame excuse people are making up. Especially if Pioli/Haley make the Chiefs into a winning team by then... he would be willing to stick around for less unless everyone in the locker room hates him for some reason...

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:38 PM
parcells took bledsoe #1

Sure that's the 1 exception, lets be frank the blueprint of that tree has more to do with getting a QB they are comfortable with than anything else.

We just watched one of them run his teams young franchise player out of town over it.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:38 PM
he's played VERY WELL at LT he will want to be PAID like a LT

If we are talking about giving him an extension now then yes, but down the road things change...

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:38 PM
By the way for the few who came in first like this was a totally over discussed topic....we're at 78 posts in like 15 minutes.

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:39 PM
How many teams are the same?
Well, the teams that don't draft an LT and move their better LT to Guard won't be the same as teams that do. The teams that don't will be unequivocally better.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:39 PM
You really think hes going to hold a grudge and want paid like a LT when hes been playing OG for the last four years(at that time)? If hes a little bitch like that he should be traded then, but I don't see that happening. I think this is just a lame excuse people are making up. Especially if Pioli/Haley make the Chiefs into a winning team by then... he would be willing to stick around for less unless everyone in the locker room hates him for some reason...

He's played LT and will want to keep playing LT. He's not being a little bitch if he knows he can play a more important position and he wants to get paid like he can.

TRR
04-11-2009, 07:39 PM
Matt Cassel played TE his senior year isn't that a bit scary....

I don't see any star potential there, I see league average QB.

And no offense or anything but Mark Sanchez has better mechanics and a much quicker release. And there are several of us that talked about Sanchez at 3 much much longer than a month ago.

I know your a Sanchez advocate, and I do think he will be a good QB in the league as well. I don't however think he is going to be a franchise QB like you do....So I would rather go with Cassel, and free up the third pick for another player. If KC somehow can get a king's ransom for Cassel, and secure Sanchez...I have no issues with that other than Sanchez's learning curve. Otherwise...

Cassel or Sanchez....Cassel all day, everyday.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:40 PM
You really think hes going to hold a grudge and want paid like a LT when hes been playing OG for the last four years(at that time)? If hes a little bitch like that he should be traded then, but I don't see that happening. I think this is just a lame excuse people are making up. Especially if Pioli/Haley make the Chiefs into a winning team by then... he would be willing to stick around for less unless everyone in the locker room hates him for some reason...

no i really think that as a business man he would want to be paid to the level of his service and after PROVING that he is probably going to be a VERY GOOD TO ELITE LT he will want lt money

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:40 PM
Injurys.



Happens to most young QB's.

Isn't one of the arguments for Cassel that he's played in the NFL is 27 and isn't a rookie and all of that?

If I'm going to be given the young QB excuse then whey are we developing a 27 year old one instead of a 22 year old one?

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:40 PM
For seriously suggesting LT at all.

God damn it, we have a franchise LT.

Why the hell does anyone think we need another?

Seriously, why?

Because its the best player on the board... there isn't much value this year and who knows if we are able to trade down... Oline is a weakness for this team also..

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:40 PM
By the way for the few who came in first like this was a totally over discussed topic....we're at 78 posts in like 15 minutes.
Well, there's a reason that its overdiscussed. There's always a bunch of people that are terrible with respect to football knowledge, and others that have a compulsory need to point out the sheer stupidity in others. Its the perfect storm of argument known as ChiefsPlanet.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:41 PM
Sure that's the 1 exception, lets be frank the blueprint of that tree has more to do with getting a QB they are comfortable with than anything else.

We just watched one of them run his teams young franchise player out of town over it.

that probably had as much to do with the franchise player as wanting something "comfortable"

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:41 PM
By the way for the few who came in first like this was a totally over discussed topic....we're at 78 posts in like 15 minutes.

ROFL they were saying that because this is the same debate that's been going on for months. If you start a thread with this as the topic your going to get a 100 post thread at least no matter what.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:41 PM
I'll say it again the only way this team should be taking Oline is if they trade down significantly.

Raised On Riots
04-11-2009, 07:41 PM
I bet that there hasn't been any discussion on this subject at all in the last month.

ROFL

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:41 PM
I like Curry fine. Seems like a good pick. I don't like getting another LT early in the draft. I'm with milkman on that. Don't think there's any possibility of us taking Sanchez and I was for Cassel. In retrospect after all of the most recent coverage, I think we missed it.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:42 PM
Well, the teams that don't draft an LT and move their better LT to Guard won't be the same as teams that do. The teams that don't will be unequivocally better.

So how do you know Monroe is better than Albert? They didn't believe that in college and teams last year didn't seem to believe Albert was this god you are claiming otherwise he would have been drafted #1 overall, not #15...

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:42 PM
I'd rather pay 2 QB's for this year then trade one next year or flip one for picks in this draft than take Curry in the top 3.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:43 PM
So how do you know Monroe is better than Albert? They didn't believe that in college and teams last year didn't seem to believe Albert was this god you are claiming otherwise he would have been drafted #1 overall, not #15...

All this would do is guarantee that Branden Albert would ask you for a LT contract thus meaning you'd have 150 million dollars in OT or he'd walk to a team that would pay him like one.

As a long term idea it's a failure.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:43 PM
So how do you know Monroe is better than Albert? They didn't believe that in college and teams last year didn't seem to believe Albert was this god you are claiming otherwise he would have been drafted #1 overall, not #15...

thank you for making my point:D

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:44 PM
Because its the best player on the board... there isn't much value this year and who knows if we are able to trade down... Oline is a weakness for this team also..

good point. but I think for the money, I would wait until later in the draft and go to work on guards and RT....

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:44 PM
I'll say it again the only way this team should be taking Oline is if they trade down significantly.

I'm slightly confused, you say Monroe and Smith are a lot better than Long last year... Long along with a few other LT's were better prospects than Albert, but Albert is better than Monroe and Smith? Interesting.

splatbass
04-11-2009, 07:44 PM
Cassel is not a franchise guy

Why? What is your reasoning here?

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:45 PM
I'm slightly confused, you say Monroe and Smith are a lot better than Long last year... Long along with a few other LT's were better prospects than Albert, but Albert is better than Monroe and Smith? Interesting.

You don't set yourself up to lose a guy after 1 contract, it's a long term failure read my other post.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:46 PM
Why? What is your reasoning here?

Derek Anderson?

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:46 PM
You don't set yourself up to lose a guy after 1 contract, it's a long term failure read my other post.

good way of putting it

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:47 PM
Derek Anderson?

they are different people, i would throw out the player that came out with 16 starts at qb that busted but cant think of one that was even drafted high:D

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:47 PM
Albert was said to be the best OG since Steve Hutchinson, but you don't want to pay the man? Hes not going to get paid like he would if he hits the open market... players give their teams discounts and Albert will do so if he wants to be a Chief no matter what the position. Albert comes of as a team player, and not a selfish player to me. I don't think hes going to have a bitch fit if the team upgrades the Oline position.

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:48 PM
Why? What is your reasoning here?

A big reason is you don't have a franchise guy that needs to play from the gun to look good. He reminds me of a more accurate Tyler Thigpen.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:48 PM
If you more than anything think the Chiefs need an OT, make the argument to trade down into the teens and draft Michael Oher while picking up a bunch of picks. That makes more sense he doesn't get paid a ton and you get alot of other picks.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:48 PM
You don't set yourself up to lose a guy after 1 contract, it's a long term failure read my other post.

Well if Albert is a selfish player like you make him out to be, I doubt Pioli keeps him around anyways.

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:48 PM
So how do you know Monroe is better than Albert? They didn't believe that in college and teams last year didn't seem to believe Albert was this god you are claiming otherwise he would have been drafted #1 overall, not #15...
1.) Albert was moved to guard at UVA because Monroe's skillset was suited for LT only. Albert was the more versatile of the two, so it was Albert that was moved. UVA needed both of those talents on the field at the same time, and Monroe could only be used profitably at LT.

2.) Oh, c'mon. You're not actually serious with that second point are you?

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:49 PM
If you more than anything think the Chiefs need an OT, make the argument to trade down into the teens and draft Michael Oher while picking up a bunch of picks. That makes more sense he doesn't get paid a ton and you get alot of other picks.

then the bookends(or lt lg) are paid similar. both are affordable

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:49 PM
Albert was said to be the best OG since Steve Hutchinson, but you don't want to pay the man? Hes not going to get paid like he would if he hits the open market... players give their teams discounts and Albert will do so if he wants to be a Chief no matter what the position. Albert comes of as a team player, and not a selfish player to me. I don't think hes going to have a bitch fit if the team upgrades the Oline position.

He played a season at OT if you think he won't play every card he can to get the biggest contract he can, you're crazy. Every team in the league had him on their board as an OT that means he's views as an OT and will expect to be paid like one...

You set yourself up for failure because guess what, he'll go to a team that will pay him as a LT.

Tribal Warfare
04-11-2009, 07:49 PM
I'm slightly confused, you say Monroe and Smith are a lot better than Long last year... Long along with a few other LT's were better prospects than Albert, but Albert is better than Monroe and Smith? Interesting.

It's like this Albert has better feet than both, and has more potential at this stage of his young career.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:50 PM
If you more than anything think the Chiefs need an OT, make the argument to trade down into the teens and draft Michael Oher while picking up a bunch of picks. That makes more sense he doesn't get paid a ton and you get alot of other picks.

Why it would be the same thing, he knows he can play LT and would want paid like one. You thought he was a better prospect that Long last year, making him a better prospect than Albert, but you don't want him playing LT? Or are you advocating moving Albert going against everything you've been saying? Either way thats setting the team up for long term failure. :rolleyes:

Kyle DeLexus
04-11-2009, 07:50 PM
Albert was said to be the best OG since Steve Hutchinson, but you don't want to pay the man? Hes not going to get paid like he would if he hits the open market... players give their teams discounts and Albert will do so if he wants to be a Chief no matter what the position. Albert comes of as a team player, and not a selfish player to me. I don't think hes going to have a bitch fit if the team upgrades the Oline position.

He knows he can play the most important position on the line. I believe he will want to keep playing that position. He worked hard to do what he did last year, why change what works?

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:50 PM
Well if Albert is a selfish player like you make him out to be, I doubt Pioli keeps him around anyways.

Selfish player?

You don't think he's gonna try to get the most money he can when his contract is up? That doesn't make him selfish it makes him a person with a fucking brain.

And yes I'm sure Pioli hates the best offensive lineman on the team, just scrap him.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:50 PM
Well if Albert is a selfish player like you make him out to be, I doubt Pioli keeps him around anyways.

WHOA no one has said selfish(except you) players(and their agents) look out for their selves usually the player that gives the "discount" is a plyer that is on his 3rd contract for a GOOD/GREAT team

the Talking Can
04-11-2009, 07:51 PM
i haven't read the thread yet, but i'll take a wild guess that the subject and comments are fresh and original?

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:51 PM
Why it would be the same thing, he knows he can play LT and would want paid like one. You thought he was a better prospect that Long last year, making him a better prospect than Albert, but you don't want him playing LT? Or are you advocating moving Albert going against everything you've been saying? Either way thats setting the team up for long term failure. :rolleyes:

You are literally being retarded tonight...

milkman
04-11-2009, 07:52 PM
All this would do is guarantee that Branden Albert would ask you for a LT contract thus meaning you'd have 150 million dollars in OT or he'd walk to a team that would pay him like one.

As a long term idea it's a failure.

And after moving Albert, when he does walk for more money, you can always replace a RT or guard with a mid round pick.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:52 PM
i haven't read the thread yet, but i'll take a wild guess that the subject and comments are fresh and original?

lots of great first time points in here.:D

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:52 PM
And after moving Albert, when he does walk for more money, you can always replace a RT or guard with a mid round pick.

:)

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 07:53 PM
Why it would be the same thing, he knows he can play LT and would want paid like one. You thought he was a better prospect that Long last year, making him a better prospect than Albert, but you don't want him playing LT? Or are you advocating moving Albert going against everything you've been saying? Either way thats setting the team up for long term failure. :rolleyes:
Maybe he thought that Albert is a better prospect than Long? I know I did/do.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:54 PM
i haven't read the thread yet, but i'll take a wild guess that the subject and comments are fresh and original?

Actually they are. Go back and read from page one and give us a short book report at the end.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:54 PM
Well its a good thing we have the franchise tag so he can't just walk. Also the tag would pay him like a top OG, not LT.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:54 PM
I don't like Jake Long as a high pick, I wouldn't take a guy who struggles in pass protection that high...

milkman
04-11-2009, 07:54 PM
I'm slightly confused, you say Monroe and Smith are a lot better than Long last year... Long along with a few other LT's were better prospects than Albert, but Albert is better than Monroe and Smith? Interesting.

Albert has the potential to be better than any LT taken in this draft, and the last draft as well.

I'm not taking another LT to replace a guy that has Willie Roaf potential.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:55 PM
Maybe he thought that Albert is a better prospect than Long? I know I did/do.

It doesn't really matter because he thought Oher was the best last year...

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:55 PM
Well its a good thing we have the franchise tag so he can't just walk. Also the tag would pay him like a top OG, not LT.

good idea unless he appeals to be paid like a LT didnt suggs do this after the season

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:55 PM
Well its a good thing we have the franchise tag so he can't just walk. Also the tag would pay him like a top OG, not LT.

No offense or anything but if you take another OT high this year, whichever one moves should be playing RT not OG first....OT's are more valuable than any interior line position.

If you want an OT this is the argument I want, trade down once or twice get several extra picks take Oher play him at RT, that's the argument I expect. That way Albert and him combined don't make as much as Monroe does and you can realistically re-sign both of them.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 07:56 PM
Michael Oher does have top flight potential, his ceiling may be the highest of any OT in the draft this year and last he's just not nearly as sure of a bet.

JASONSAUTO
04-11-2009, 07:57 PM
No offense or anything but if you take another OT high this year, whichever one moves should be playing RT not OG first....OT's are more valuable than any interior line position.

If you want an OT this is the argument I want, trade down once or twice get several extra picks take Oher play him at RT, that's the argument I expect. That way Albert and him combined don't make as much as Monroe does and you can realistically re-sign both of them.

i could agree with this, was against oher(brains) but looked around and found out ryan clady can only say "duuuuhhhhh" and "deeeeerrrr"

splatbass
04-11-2009, 07:57 PM
A big reason is you don't have a franchise guy that needs to play from the gun to look good. He reminds me of a more accurate Tyler Thigpen.

He didn't always play from the shotgun.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 07:58 PM
Albert has the potential to be better than any LT taken in this draft, and the last draft as well.

I'm not taking another LT to replace a guy that has Willie Roaf potential.

He also has the potential to be the best OG ever, he also wasn't drafted too high to be labeled as a bust if he goes back to his original position. Monroe also has that same if not more LT potential...

I'm not saying LT should be the pick... but I would rather not reach and sometimes you have to take what your dealt...

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 07:58 PM
I think that we are going to pick up solid O-linemen to fill other positions later in the draft.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:00 PM
Even Andre Smith who may slide some, if you want an OT your argument should be for dropping down and taking them not taking an OT at 3.

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of this draft if the Chiefs somehow were able to get into the 12-17 range while picking up several extra picks and ended up getting an OT and a Center out of this I wouldn't complain that much this is probably the year to get some starting lineman it's one of the few real strengths of the draft.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 08:00 PM
I personally would rather have the Pro Bowl LT moving our current one making him a Pro Bowl OG or RT instead of reaching on a consistent complementary ILB...

milkman
04-11-2009, 08:01 PM
He also has the potential to be the best OG ever, he also wasn't drafted too high to be labeled as a bust if he goes back to his original position. Monroe also has that same if not more LT potential...

I'm not saying LT should be the pick... but I would rather not reach and sometimes you have to take what your dealt...

Are you fucking high?

Are you actually saying you would rather have a Steve Hutchinson than a great Willie Roaf?

Have you ingested drugs that kill all your fucking brain cells?

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:02 PM
No...we want both Roaf and Hutchinson

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:02 PM
Rust isn't even thinking about it properly, they'd play LT and RT no one in this scenario plays fucking guard.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:04 PM
I realize that this has probably been chewed to pieces. I've always been in favor of going with the guy who has NFL experience...... Kinda rolled my eyes at the guys posting about the great hope of any draft quarterbacks. I've just had my mind changed.

The hype machine claims another.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 08:04 PM
Are you fucking high?

Are you actually saying you would rather have a Steve Hutchinson than a great Willie Roaf?

Have you ingested drugs that kill all your fucking brain cells?

No I'm saying I would rather have a Roaf and Hutchinson than a Roaf and solid LB.

Messier
04-11-2009, 08:04 PM
Derek Anderson?

Wow. That's not good reasoning.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:05 PM
The hype machine claims another.

Good to hear you crazyhorse finally.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:05 PM
No I'm saying I would rather have a Roaf and Hutchinson than a Roaf and solid LB.

Seattle did this, what did they win?

the Talking Can
04-11-2009, 08:05 PM
two things about chiefs fans that are driving me crazy right now:

1. they want to trade down for a fraction of the value of our pick

2. they want to move our first round draft pick stud rookie LT to guard...just because...

two years in a row this shit franchsie won't spend a high pick on a QB but we're ok spending back to back firsts on the same position on the OL?

that's how championship teams are built? McFly?

and we wonder why it's been 25,000 years since our last superbowl?

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:06 PM
Better hype than mediocre, right? I'm just afraid that Cassel is mediocre

RustShack
04-11-2009, 08:07 PM
Seattle did this, what did they win?

So to answer my question that you ignored, you take Curry over Monroe? Thank You.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:07 PM
Cassel. Is it possible he was just a product of the system?


What "system"?

Aren't all offenses systems. I say instead of taking a risk on a QB with no experience that has a less than 40% chance of succeeding in the NFL, we just run, "the system".

Wouldn't that be easier?

Is Sanchez a product of a system? Or is he instant offense?

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:08 PM
So to answer my question that you ignored, you take Curry over Monroe? Thank You.

I'm not taking either one of them...that's like a Chiefnj question where he asks you what you would do while telling you "other than" 5 plausible scenarios.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:09 PM
What "system"?

Aren't all offenses systems. I say instead of taking a risk on a QB with no experience that has a less than 40% chance of succeeding in the NFL, we just run, "the system".

Wouldn't that be easier?

Is Sanchez a product of a system? Or is he instant offense?

The system named Randy Moss.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:09 PM
What "system"?

Aren't all offenses systems. I say instead of taking a risk on a QB with no experience that has a less than 40% chance of succeeding in the NFL, we just run, "the system".

Wouldn't that be easier?

Is Sanchez a product of a system? Or is he instant offense?

So maybe regardless of what we do, it's the system that will make or break us. See, if you would have chimed in earlier, you would have saved me having to read 150 other comments.

RustShack
04-11-2009, 08:09 PM
I'm not taking either one of them...that's like a Chiefnj question where he asks you what you would do while telling you "other than" 5 plausible scenarios.

I just figure those are the real two options unless Pioli wants to reach... actually I take that back.. I still have a feeling Crabtree is on the radar.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:10 PM
Better hype than mediocre, right? I'm just afraid that Cassel is mediocre


No

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:11 PM
I just figure those are the real two options unless Pioli wants to reach... actually I take that back.. I still have a feeling Crabtree is on the radar.

If you don't think BJ Raji is a legit option you haven't paid much attention to how that Pat team drafted.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:12 PM
No

Maybe I should say, "better take a risk than guarantee mediocre" It's not necessarily hype, right? I think I trumped you on the whole opinion of Cutler and what he could do back when he was coming out of college. Conceed?

RustShack
04-11-2009, 08:12 PM
If you don't think BJ Raji is a legit option you haven't paid much attention to how that Pat team drafted.

I'm just throwing this out there, because I have a feeling people think I'm on the LT bandwagon now... Brown and Raji are probably my top two guys I want...

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 08:13 PM
So to answer my question that you ignored, you take Curry over Monroe? Thank You.
"Would you rather have your arm cut off? Or melted off?"

Neither option is good.

milkman
04-11-2009, 08:13 PM
No I'm saying I would rather have a Roaf and Hutchinson than a Roaf and solid LB.

So let's just go with the Keg plan of drafting LTs in the first round every year.

I bet Albert could learn to play center.

Messier
04-11-2009, 08:14 PM
The system named Randy Moss.

That will explain why the Oakland QBs all looked great.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:15 PM
And look I'm not against trading down if they decide they want to go with an OT for the right side you just don't do that in the top 10.

If the Chiefs really believe Cassel is their guy than they should give him things to work with and this is also a really bad defensive draft. If the Chiefs came out traded down and took a OT a Center and a WR I'd understand why.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:15 PM
So maybe regardless of what we do, it's the system that will make or break us. See, if you would have chimed in earlier, you would have saved me having to read 150 other comments.


It's the trenches thhat make pr break NFL QBs. Many thought Trent Green was a system QB. He was in a system that lead the league if thats the case. Cassel has shown that he can learn on the run, He's worth the effort. Especially after giving up the 2nd for him. Had we not traded for him, the arguement would carry more weight. Though I am not sold on Sanchez in particular.

Cassel is our boy. Let's give him the bast chance to succeed by putting talent around him on both sides of the ball.

No place for buyers remorse now. Time to get behind him, like we did Green.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:16 PM
That will explain why the Oakland QBs all looked great.

Oh please we all know that Randy didn't give 2 shits when he was there, it's not remotely the same.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:16 PM
It's the trenches thhat make pr break NFL QBs. Many thought Trent Green was a system QB. He was in a system that lead the league if thats the case. Cassel has shown that he can learn on the run, He's worth the effort. Especially after giving up the 2nd for him. Had we not traded for him, the arguement would carry more weight. Though I am not sold on Sanchez in particular.

Cassel is our boy. Let's give him the bast chance to succeed by putting talent around him on both sides of the ball.

No place for buyers remorse now. Time to get behind him, like we did Green.

That line was a bit overblown...no one should need that to succeed.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:16 PM
The hype machine claims another.

By the way, I started this thread because, you're right, the hype was affecting me.....still is. I was looking for some good Cassel arguments to make me feel better about where we are. Cause I'm not sure that I do.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:17 PM
....as if it mattered.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:18 PM
Maybe I should say, "better take a risk than guarantee mediocre" It's not necessarily hype, right? I think I trumped you on the whole opinion of Cutler and what he could do back when he was coming out of college. Conceed?

Absolutely not. He still hasn't done nothing. And it looks like he's the next Jeff George.

I never said he couldn't throw the ball. I said he's done nothing in the NFL. He still hasn't. He may even wind up being the next TO. His own equalizer. Stay tuned.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:18 PM
It's the trenches thhat make pr break NFL QBs. Many thought Trent Green was a system QB. He was in a system that lead the league if thats the case. Cassel has shown that he can learn on the run, He's worth the effort. Especially after giving up the 2nd for him. Had we not traded for him, the arguement would carry more weight. Though I am not sold on Sanchez in particular.

Cassel is our boy. Let's give him the bast chance to succeed by putting talent around him on both sides of the ball.

No place for buyers remorse now. Time to get behind him, like we did Green.

lol...really good point. Still...like the argument.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:20 PM
By the way, I started this thread because, you're right, the hype was affecting me.....still is. I was looking for some good Cassel arguments to make me feel better about where we are. Cause I'm not sure that I do.

I didn't feel that great about Priest Holmes.

So there ya go.

Ya never know. Sanchez certainly doesn't make me feel more confident than a player who has shown he can play at an NFL level.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:21 PM
Absolutely not. He still hasn't done nothing. And it looks like he's the next Jeff George.

I never said he couldn't throw the ball. I said he's done nothing in the NFL. He still hasn't. He may even wind up being the next TO. His own equalizer. Stay tuned.

Hasn't done anything, meaning what? Hasn't won a superbowl or a playoff game? Cause, he peformed excellent last year. TO doesn't count that much. If this guy plays for any other team than the Broncos you would see him differently. Stay tuned.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:21 PM
lol...really good point. Still...like the argument.


Ywo words

Jamarcus Russell

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 08:22 PM
It's the trenches thhat make pr break NFL QBs. Many thought Trent Green was a system QB. He was in a system that lead the league if thats the case. Cassel has shown that he can learn on the run, He's worth the effort. Especially after giving up the 2nd for him. Had we not traded for him, the arguement would carry more weight. Though I am not sold on Sanchez in particular.

Cassel is our boy. Let's give him the bast chance to succeed by putting talent around him on both sides of the ball.

No place for buyers remorse now. Time to get behind him, like we did Green.
And we didn't win squat with Green and that line.

I'm not interested in building a good team. I'm interested in building a championship team.

milkman
04-11-2009, 08:22 PM
Great QBs transcend systems.

Joe Montana may not have been as great if not in San Farn, but we saw what he did for the Chiefs in his short time there.

Tom Brady has evolved as the system in NE has evolved.

Give me a great QB and I'll take my chances, regardless of system.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:23 PM
I didn't feel that great about Priest Holmes.

So there ya go.

Ya never know. Sanchez certainly doesn't make me feel more confident than a player who has shown he can play at an NFL level.

You're right. That's what I'm hoping for. Again, not against Cassel.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:24 PM
Great QBs transcend systems.

Joe Montana may not have been as great if not in San Farn, but we saw what he did for the Chiefs in his short time there.

Tom Brady has evolved as the system in NE has evolved.

Give me a great QB and I'll take my chances, regardless of system.

Montana did good in KC...He was great in San Francisco behind that line, within that system. Steve Young was also great there. Even Grbac looked good there and look how stellar he was for us.

Messier
04-11-2009, 08:26 PM
Oh please we all know that Randy didn't give 2 shits when he was there, it's not remotely the same.


Really? Do you think moss had a moment after Brady went down that he thought, the season's over, might as well phone in the rest of the season? I'm not saying this happed but it's possible, and as the season went along Moss and the rest of the team saw that Cassel could play well?

I watched Cassel play, and I don't think he was a "system" player, or just relying on the talent around him. He made plays work that weren't working. He wasn't just throwing to wide open receivers all day. He was making accurate passes sometimes on the run, because the o-line wasn't that good for them last year.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:26 PM
Hasn't done anything, meaning what? Hasn't won a superbowl or a playoff game? Cause, he peformed excellent last year. TO doesn't count that much. If this guy plays for any other team than the Broncos you would see him differently. Stay tuned.

He choked down the stretch last year. Probably the hangover. Cost Shanny his job.

He's a loose cannnon.

His offense was top 2 or 3 in moving the ball but 16th in scoring.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:26 PM
Great quartebacks can sometimes transcend systems. I personally think that there are quarterbacks that could have been great, but the systems killed them before they ever had the opportunity.

Raised On Riots
04-11-2009, 08:26 PM
Based off only your assumptions pal. It seems to me that we need to see Cassel play another year (In a Chiefs uni) before we can evaluate him.

Ah yes, hurry up and wait. The great crutch argument of our time.


not scary to me, shows what an athlete he is, and shows he's got a competitive streak. he saw that he couldnt beat out leinart(fair or not) and wanted to play. shows his character IMO

That's quite "Tebowish" of you Sauto, and it inspires miles of confidence in my football-loving soul. :rolleyes:


The hype machine claims another.

At this point, I would like to take a moment to thank Carl Peterson for single-handidly creating quite possibly the most jello-brained, ass-backward fan base in the History of Professional Sports.
I would also like to acknowledge his lasting, herpes-like effect on the Chiefs Nation. We're chugging along, starting to think straight and cleansing ourselves of two decades of idiocy, and then our Carl-Herpes kicks in.
The brain shuts down, and we're getting in a tizzy over a fucking lineman;
A LINEMAN!
So thank you Carl, and may your balls be roasted over a fire while a lost Amazon Rain Jungle Tribe shrinks your worthless fucking head for use as a spear ornament.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 08:27 PM
Even Grbac looked good there and look how stellar he was for us.

:spock:

When he started all of 5 games in '95 and 4 games in '96? And he wasn't really worth a shit in '96, too.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:28 PM
And we didn't win squat with Green and that line.

I'm not interested in building a good team. I'm interested in building a championship team.

Championship teams have to play defense. Ask any great QB.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:30 PM
He choked down the stretch last year. Probably the hangover. Cost Shanny his job.

He's a loose cannnon.

His offense was top 2 or 3 in moving the ball but 16th in scoring.

OK, point well made. But he's a pro bowl quarterback. Don't throw him away as a no-count. The whole scenario is not played out. You may very well be right.

Reaper16
04-11-2009, 08:30 PM
Championship teams have to play defense. Ask any great QB.
I don't think that having a stout defense and a franchise QB are mutually exclusive.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:31 PM
Championship teams have to play defense. Ask any great QB.

Kinda made my point about Cutler here. I'm also for drafting Curry now, by the way.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:40 PM
Kinda made my point about Cutler here. I'm also for drafting Curry now, by the way.

Great QBs dont throw picks in the red zone. Or get hammered before games. Nor do they throw team mates under the bus after a loss. You dont expect much from your QB I can see. Just throw a fast ball and your "one of the greats".

I would like us to draft Curry if we stay at 3.

Now that we have signed Zack Thomas or LB needs are solved.:rolleyes:

What's that all about?

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:42 PM
Brett Favre got hammered before games...

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:48 PM
:spock:

When he started all of 5 games in '95 and 4 games in '96? And he wasn't really worth a shit in '96, too.

I was being sarcastic.....

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:49 PM
Brett Favre got hammered before games...

Didn't know that. I certainly dont see that as an arguement for success as an NFL QB. It's a problem. That only means he could have been better.

Maybe Cutler will be the next Favre. He definately hasn't "arrived" up to this point. He's looking like the next Jeff George to me. But I've been wrong before.

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 08:51 PM
Kinda made my point about Cutler here. I'm also for drafting Curry now, by the way.

It's a reach to pick any 3-4 ILB in the top 5. I don't understand why people think Curry is a no-brainer. The Chiefs are obviously transitioning into a 3-4 and will probably play it exclusively within the next 2-3 years. Curry is a borderline top 5 pick in a 4-3, but he's an enormous reach in a 3-4.

I realize the options are limited. But I think you get a lot better value with an average nose tackle like Raji or an average 3-4 OLB like Everett Brown than you do with a terrific 3-4 ILB like Curry.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:51 PM
Great QBs dont throw picks in the red zone. Or get hammered before games. Nor do they throw team mates under the bus after a loss. You dont expect much from your QB I can see. Just throw a fast ball and your "one of the greats".

I would like us to draft Curry if we stay at 3.

Now that we have signed Zack Thomas or LB needs are solved.:rolleyes:

What's that all about?

I don't think I every said he was "one of the greats".... Just that he was a pro bowler. He's not a bust.

I'm still on board for Curry too. I don't get the Zack Thomas signing at all unless they are looking for a player coach, which may very well be. That would be actually brilliant. Ok, we'll go with that.

Pioli Zombie
04-11-2009, 08:52 PM
I realize that we are where we are, but the more I see about Sanchez, the more I'm afraid that a few years down the road, we may look back and realize that we passed up on the franchise guy that we've been looking for. I know that Cassel played ok last year, but is he a franchise guy? ...likely not. Thoughts?
Oh fuck me with a broken bottle
Posted via Mobile Device

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 08:54 PM
Really? Do you think moss had a moment after Brady went down that he thought, the season's over, might as well phone in the rest of the season? I'm not saying this happed but it's possible, and as the season went along Moss and the rest of the team saw that Cassel could play well?

I watched Cassel play, and I don't think he was a "system" player, or just relying on the talent around him. He made plays work that weren't working. He wasn't just throwing to wide open receivers all day. He was making accurate passes sometimes on the run, because the o-line wasn't that good for them last year.

The problem is that people assume that because Brady excelled in the system, that means anybody can.

Brady makes that system great. The Pats' o-line is not good. Brady makes them look better because he makes lightning fast reads and can read a blitz from a mile away.

Yes, it's true that players like Moss and Welker are outstanding receivers. But the Pats' o-line is fairly average behind any quarterback not named Tom Brady.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:54 PM
It's a reach to pick any 3-4 ILB in the top 5. I don't understand why people think Curry is a no-brainer. The Chiefs are obviously transitioning into a 3-4 and will probably play it exclusively within the next 2-3 years. Curry is a borderline top 5 pick in a 4-3, but he's an enormous reach in a 3-4.

I realize the options are limited. But I think you get a lot better value with an average nose tackle like Raji or an average 3-4 OLB like Everett Brown than you do with a terrific 3-4 ILB like Curry.

#3 is too high of a pick for a nose tackle. It's got to be a game changer type player risk to me, or franchise left tackle, which we may already have like some have said. Curry is a game changer type athlete.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 08:54 PM
OK, point well made. But he's a pro bowl quarterback. Don't throw him away as a no-count. The whole scenario is not played out. You may very well be right.

I see the talent. But think he's over rated. Phillip Rivers should have went to the pro bowl in his place. But there's no doubt Cutler has talent. If he can get his ego under control, you may very well be right. If not, he'll self destruct.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 08:55 PM
#3 is too high of a pick for a nose tackle. It's got to be a game changer type player risk to me, or franchise left tackle, which we may already have like some have said. Curry is a game changer type athlete.

Rajis position is much more valuable to the 3-4 than Currys is.

Raised On Riots
04-11-2009, 08:55 PM
"Would you rather have your arm cut off? Or melted off?"

Neither option is good.

LMAO:LOL:

And we didn't win squat with Green and that line.

I'm not interested in building a good team. I'm interested in building a championship team.

Great QBs transcend systems.

Joe Montana may not have been as great if not in San Farn, but we saw what he did for the Chiefs in his short time there.

Tom Brady has evolved as the system in NE has evolved.

Give me a great QB and I'll take my chances, regardless of system.

THESE.

It's a reach to pick any 3-4 ILB in the top 5. I don't understand why people think Curry is a no-brainer. The Chiefs are obviously transitioning into a 3-4 and will probably play it exclusively within the next 2-3 years. Curry is a borderline top 5 pick in a 4-3, but he's an enormous reach in a 3-4.

I realize the options are limited. But I think you get a lot better value with an average nose tackle like Raji or an average 3-4 OLB like Everett Brown than you do with a terrific 3-4 ILB like Curry.

The Lord and Savior Jesus Curry is now off of the Chiefs board, and is of no consequence.

Never really was either.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:56 PM
Oh **** me with a broken bottle
Posted via Mobile Device

Uhhhh you're almost 200 comments late to chime in with that one. but thanks.

milkman
04-11-2009, 08:57 PM
#3 is too high of a pick for a nose tackle. It's got to be a game changer type player risk to me, or franchise left tackle, which we may already have like some have said. Curry is a game changer type athlete.

Bullshit.

ILBs are not game changers.

Thanks for playing.

Try again.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:58 PM
I see the talent. But think he's over rated. Phillip Rivers should have went to the pro bowl in his place. But there's no doubt Cutler has talent. If he can get his ego under control, you may very well be right. If not, he'll self destruct.

You are definitely right about both of those points.

EyePod
04-11-2009, 08:59 PM
I think it's pretty simple, anyone who takes time to watch Sanchez and learn about him will love the guy. He has everything you look for in a QB in the intangibles area, he's as sound as they come with his mechanics and quick release and feet..

The only arguments against him are "he's short" and " he started 16 games" and of course for anyone that watched him play he doesn't remotely look like a 1 year starter.

This doesn't matter. You pick one guy and look only at his positives. You looked at Tyler Thigpen and continually said that he was too short to be an NFL QB. He's 6'1". Your Mark "I WANT TO LICK YOUR TESTICLES-From Mecca" Sanchez is a whole inch taller.

He started 16 games.

This is my biggest detraction against him. This is one of the most statistically relevant things for a QB coming out of college. He needs to improve completion percentage each season, and start at least 3 seasons in college to have a much better chance to succeed in the NFL. This is a fact, and anyone who goes against this is an anomaly.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 08:59 PM
#3 is too high of a pick for a nose tackle. It's got to be a game changer type player risk to me, or franchise left tackle, which we may already have like some have said. Curry is a game changer type athlete.

Assuming we're headed toward running the 3-4, what do you think a DT in this scheme is?

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 08:59 PM
Bullshit.

ILBs are not game changers.

Thanks for playing.

Try again.

You still here? I thought you were bored with comment #2. Thanks for still playing.

EyePod
04-11-2009, 09:00 PM
I see the talent. But think he's over rated. Phillip Rivers should have went to the pro bowl in his place. But there's no doubt Cutler has talent. If he can get his ego under control, you may very well be right. If not, he'll self destruct.

But damn do I love thinking about that tool bag getting snubbed. What an ass-hat. I hate Phil Rivers a lot.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 09:01 PM
Bullshit.

ILBs are not game changers.

Thanks for playing.

Try again.

He may not have him pigeon holed as an ILB.

And any player can be a game changer. To say any different is short sighted.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:01 PM
This doesn't matter. You pick one guy and look only at his positives. You looked at Tyler Thigpen and continually said that he was too short to be an NFL QB. He's 6'1". Your Mark "I WANT TO LICK YOUR TESTICLES-From Mecca" Sanchez is a whole inch taller.

He started 16 games.

This is my biggest detraction against him. This is one of the most statistically relevant things for a QB coming out of college. He needs to improve completion percentage each season, and start at least 3 seasons in college to have a much better chance to succeed in the NFL. This is a fact, and anyone who goes against this is an anomaly.

Are you saying Mark Sanchez has bad completion percentage numbers...

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:02 PM
He may not have him pigeon holed as an ILB.

And any player can be a game changer. To say any different is short sighted.

And here we are again with this whole Curry can play outside crap.

Pioli Zombie
04-11-2009, 09:03 PM
Rajis position is much more valuable to the 3-4 than Currys is.

Excuse the tired cliche but
THIS
Posted via Mobile Device

milkman
04-11-2009, 09:03 PM
You still here? I thought you were bored with comment #2. Thanks for still playing.

I didn't say I was bored with.

My comment had to do with the way you presented as a whole new fucking idea.

My comment had to do with the fact that your revelation was so important that you had to start a new thread to let everyone know that one of your brain cells finally clicked on.

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 09:03 PM
Assuming we're headed toward running the 3-4, what do you think a DT in this scheme is?

That confuses me too.

The nose tackle is the most important defender in a 3-4. The reason they're not picked higher is usually because most teams will never let a good nose tackle go, and because only a fraction of teams actually run a 3-4.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 09:03 PM
He may not have him pigeon holed as an ILB.

And any player can be a game changer. To say any different is short sighted.

If he could be a disruptive pass rusher, why didn't he in college?

There are logical reasons for some players. Albert as case in point. What's the logic from Curry backers for why their boy is going to suddenly become something he hasn't been?

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 09:04 PM
Ok....I'm talking about a consistent game changer.

Messier
04-11-2009, 09:05 PM
Rajis position is much more valuable to the 3-4 than Currys is.

I have to agree, and I'm wondering if that's who we might be looking at.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 09:05 PM
Curry is a big kid and fast. I think he could be successful on the outside as well.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 09:06 PM
I didn't say I was bored with.

My comment had to do with the way you presented as a whole new ****ing idea.

My comment had to do with the fact that your revelation was so important that you had to start a new thread to let everyone know that one of your brain cells finally clicked on.


I'll pray that your life get's better. Things have to be tough, to be that big a prick. Focus on the good things friend. This is just football. Take a deep breath.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 09:06 PM
Ok....I'm talking about a consistent game changer.

Yeah, that Ngata guy makes a difference only once in awhile. He's clearly not the most important cog for that defense.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:06 PM
Ok....I'm talking about a consistent game changer.

Great in this years draft you probably aren't gonna get one. Atleast not on defense.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 09:07 PM
If you're trying to compare the importance of a DT to any other position in the 3-4, I don't think you have a solid grasp of the topic.

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 09:08 PM
He may not have him pigeon holed as an ILB.

And any player can be a game changer. To say any different is short sighted.

Curry's going to make an outstanding OLB... in a 4-3. The worst idea in the world is to take an OLB who is outstanding in coverage and moving in space, and forcing him to gain 20 lbs so that he can be more effective at shedding blocks and winning battles in the trenches. Because that's the only way the Curry experiment works at OLB in a 3-4.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:08 PM
I want to know why people that like Curry immediately go into the "he can play outside" argument.

Odds are he can't, argue for what his strengths are not what he probably won't be able to do.

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 09:10 PM
Curry is a big kid and fast. I think he could be successful on the outside as well.

Can he shed blocks as well as a DE could? Does he have experience consistently putting his hand on the ground?

Curry's strength is moving in space and coverage. By putting him in a 3-4, you're asking him to do more pass rushing than what he's best at. It's a complete misuse of his talents.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 09:10 PM
If he could be a disruptive pass rusher, why didn't he in college?

There are logical reasons for some players. Albert as case in point. What's the logic from Curry backers for why their boy is going to suddenly become something he hasn't been?

Which one of the Currybators wants to carry the water for this one?

milkman
04-11-2009, 09:10 PM
He may not have him pigeon holed as an ILB.

And any player can be a game changer. To say any different is short sighted.

Any player can make game chaning plays, but to be a game changer, you have to do it consistently.

He's not a pass rusher, and on defense pass rushers ar the game changers.

LT, DT, Reggie White, Bruce Smith, Dwight Freeny, etc. are game changers.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 09:12 PM
If he could be a disruptive pass rusher, why didn't he in college?

There are logical reasons for some players. Albert as case in point. What's the logic from Curry backers for why their boy is going to suddenly become something he hasn't been?


Ask Cunnigham why we didn't rush the passer last season. We didn't even try. Instead we always played zone and let the worst LB corp in the league chase plays. You dont blame a player for something a coach doesn't try to do. Curry made a lot of plays behind the line but didn't rush the QB.

Sounds more like a scheme or play calling issue. He has shown he can get in the backfield.

milkman
04-11-2009, 09:12 PM
I'll pray that your life get's better. Things have to be tough, to be that big a prick. Focus on the good things friend. This is just football. Take a deep breath.

I was being sarcastic originally.

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 09:13 PM
Ok....I'm talking about a consistent game changer.

A 3-4 defense can't function without an outstanding nose tackle.

Is that game-changing enough?

Just because nose tackles don't get 15 sacks doesn't meant they're game changing. The nose tackle is the most important position in a 3-4 defense. Therefore, they are game changers.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:14 PM
When you are far and away the best player on your college team, if you can rush the passer they'd have you doing it.

I don't even dislike Curry I just get tired of reading this arguments that have no merit. Guy is not pass rusher, argue his strengths don't give him one that he doesn't have.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 09:14 PM
I didn't say I was bored with.

My comment had to do with the way you presented as a whole new ****ing idea.

My comment had to do with the fact that your revelation was so important that you had to start a new thread to let everyone know that one of your brain cells finally clicked on.

Listen...when one of my brain cells kicks in...it's an event. Can you make a point without an insult?

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 09:14 PM
Ask Cunnigham why we didn't rush the passer last season. We didn't even try. Istead we always played zone and let the worst LB corp in the league chase plays. You dont blame a player for something a coach doesn't try to do. Curry made a lot of plays behind the line but didn't rush the QB.

Sounds more like a scheme or play calling issue. He has shown he can get in the backfield.

Well, a coaching staff would have to be monumentally stupid to have a pass-rushing freak of nature and decide not to use him.

This is making an assumption that pretty much defies common sense.

milkman
04-11-2009, 09:14 PM
Ask Cunnigham why we didn't rush the passer last season. We didn't even try. Istead we always played zone and let the worst LB corp in the league chase plays. You dont blame a player for something a coach doesn't try to do. Curry made a lot of plays behind the line but didn't rush the QB.

Sounds more like a scheme or play calling issue. He has shown he can get in the backfield.

But you are making an assumption that he can rush the passer based on minimal evidence to support that assuption.

You don't use the #3 on a player with the hope that he has a skillset that you want to use him for,

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 09:16 PM
Ask Cunnigham why we didn't rush the passer last season. We didn't even try. Istead we always played zone and let the worst LB corp in the league chase plays. You dont blame a player for something a coach doesn't try to do. Curry made a lot of plays behind the line but didn't rush the QB.

Sounds more like a scheme or play calling issue. He has shown he can get in the backfield.

That's not true. The Chiefs blitzed more than Gun will have you believe. And they were equally unsuccessful. But more importantly, Curry is NOT a natural pass rusher. He is an OLB who can occasionally rush the passer. But his strength is in his ability to move around the field.

It's more important for 4-3 OLBs to move around the field. It's much more important for 4-3 OLBs to be able to shed blocks and rush the passer. It's not saying Curry can't rush the passer. But it's not his strength. Everett Brown and Aaron Maybin are a lot more qualified to be pass rushers than Curry is.

milkman
04-11-2009, 09:17 PM
Listen...when one of my brain cells kicks in...it's an event. Can you make a point without an insult?

Why do you want me to change?

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 09:18 PM
Well, let's see....he's fast, big, good instincts, agile.....sounds like all of the characteristics of a good pass rusher to me. "OK, the guy with the ball about to pass....go hit him!" It doesn't take a genius to be a pass rusher.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:18 PM
If you think Curry can play outside in a 3-4 this is all I ask..

Give me one example of a traditional 4-3 backer that also played outside in the 3-4, the outside backers in the 3-4 are converted defensive ends..I can not think of 1 example of a traditional LB that stayed outside in the 3-4.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 09:19 PM
Any player can make game chaning plays, but to be a game changer, you have to do it consistently.

He's not a pass rusher, and on defense pass rushers ar the game changers.

LT, DT, Reggie White, Bruce Smith, Dwight Freeny, etc. are game changers.

DEs are the only game changers on defense, and QBs are the only game changers on offense. You've got football all figured out.

Thanks for the education.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:19 PM
Well, let's see....he's fast, big, good instincts, agile.....sounds like all of the characteristics of a good pass rusher to me. "OK, the guy with the ball about to pass....go hit him!" It doesn't take a genius to be a pass rusher.

Actually rushing the passer is very difficult and it is in many ways a science if it was as easy as just being athletic they wouldn't be at such a premium. You have to know how to use proper leverage, use your hands, stay balanced know when to use moves, how to set up a tackle, it's not an easy thing to do especially against top of the line NFL OT's.

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 09:19 PM
Well, let's see....he's fast, big, good instincts, agile.....sounds like all of the characteristics of a good pass rusher to me. "OK, the guy with the ball about to pass....go hit him!" It doesn't take a genius to be a pass rusher.

Is that all it takes?

Count Zarth
04-11-2009, 09:19 PM
Well, let's see....he's fast, big, good instincts, agile.....sounds like all of the characteristics of a good pass rusher to me. "OK, the guy with the ball about to pass....go hit him!" It doesn't take a genius to be a pass rusher.

Good pass rushers study film and break down their opponents. There is a definite mental side to it.

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 09:20 PM
Well, let's see....he's fast, big, good instincts, agile.....sounds like all of the characteristics of a good pass rusher to me. "OK, the guy with the ball about to pass....go hit him!" It doesn't take a genius to be a pass rusher.

Well, ****, sounds like we should be able to get a handful of these guys. Why haven't we already?

Sounds easy enough.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 09:20 PM
Why do you want me to change?

I don't sit and meditate long on my "presentation" to start a thread. Was just thinking about the whole Sanchez/Cassel deal and wanted to have a discussion about it. You stepped in, slammed it and have been interested ever since....just sayin.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 09:21 PM
Well, ****, sounds like we should be able to get a handful of these guys. We haven't we already?

Sounds easy enough.


Good point....can I retract now?

KCBOSS1
04-11-2009, 09:23 PM
Just sayin, there haven't been many defensive guys come down the pipe with the size, strength and speed of Curry. I just think he could fly off of the edge well. But then again, getting off the snap would be the deal eh?

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:24 PM
Just sayin, there haven't been many defensive guys come down the pipe with the size, strength and speed of Curry. I just think he could fly off of the edge well. But then again, getting off the snap would be the deal eh?

Actually, there is usually a LB that is a similar prospect to Curry every year...he's not a once in a lifetime player he's the LB that usually goes between 8-12 every year he's being pumped up because he's safe in a weak year.

milkman
04-11-2009, 09:24 PM
DEs are the only game changers on defense, and QBs are the only game changers on offense. You've got football all figured out.

Thanks for the education.

It appears that is what I said, but that was only to make the point.

There are other game changers, but generally speaking it's not that often that you get a game changer at the ILB position, which is the position that Curry's game is best suited for.

milkman
04-11-2009, 09:25 PM
I don't sit and meditate long on my "presentation" to start a thread. Was just thinking about the whole Sanchez/Cassel deal and wanted to have a discussion about it. You stepped in, slammed it and have been interested ever since....just sayin.

And I'm just flipping you shit.

CrazyHorse
04-11-2009, 09:26 PM
But you are making an assumption that he can rush the passer based on minimal evidence to support that assuption.

You don't use the #3 on a player with the hope that he has a skillset that you want to use him for,

I would use the pick because he's the best player at a position of great need for the team. Is that a good reason? He don't need to be more than he is. If he's a good pass rusher that's icing.

I'm not so hung up at what pick in the draft it is. I'm hung up on getting the best players. Not to reach for a DE to convert "in hope" of making him something else.

Willie McGinest was on NFL Networj the other day saying the toughest conversion for a 3-4 LB is pass coverage, not pass rushing.

Raised On Riots
04-11-2009, 09:26 PM
I realize that we are where we are, but the more I see about Sanchez, the more I'm afraid that a few years down the road, we may look back and realize that we passed up on the franchise guy that we've been looking for. I know that Cassel played ok last year, but is he a franchise guy? ...likely not. Thoughts?

Alright KCBOSS1, it's time for a little thing I call "Tales Of The Tape". Enough words, let's have some action:

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


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

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


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_rib5nD5P0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

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


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OaRUB1X9oxU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

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


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AsFm7zwm0SA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

<object width="440" height="361">


<embed src="http://espn.go.com/broadband/player.swf?mediaId=4005534" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="440" height="361"></object>

<object width="440" height="361">


<embed src="http://espn.go.com/broadband/player.swf?mediaId=4059370" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="440" height="361"></object>

<object width="440" height="361">


<embed src="http://espn.go.com/broadband/player.swf?mediaId=4034939" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="440" height="361"></object>

chiefzilla1501
04-11-2009, 09:27 PM
Just sayin, there haven't been many defensive guys come down the pipe with the size, strength and speed of Curry. I just think he could fly off of the edge well. But then again, getting off the snap would be the deal eh?

I think the bigger deal is that there is a lot of technique to getting through the trenches and pass rushing moves. DE is one of the more difficult positions to learn in the NFL level.

The deal is that as a 3-4 OLB, you have to be a solid DE but only have to be marginally good at a lot of the typical OLB stuff (having good range and being good in coverage). That's why you want a DE that plays OLB moreso than you want an OLB that plays DE.

Mecca
04-11-2009, 09:27 PM
That's because Willie McGinest was a defensive end in college....

DeezNutz
04-11-2009, 09:30 PM
Willie McGinest was on NFL Networj the other day saying the toughest conversion for a 3-4 LB is pass coverage, not pass rushing.

I'd have to imagine that's b/c the outside backers come into the league with pass rush ability. As Mecca stated earlier, they're usually DE's.