PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Rumors on the Chiefs, trading down, and Mark Sanchez...


htismaqe
04-27-2009, 10:55 AM
This is sure to stir up a hornets nest - it's really going to piss off the pro-Sanchez crowd. But it's also interesting information so I thought I would share. FWIW, these two rumors are somewhat contradictory, so who knows what's actually true.

The Jets reportedly called EVERY team in the top 5 except Detroit. That means they called us, so the idea that we had no chance to trade out is false if the rumor is to be believed. What it comes down to, apparently, is that we didn't want what was being offered (apparently Pioli doesn't like Kenyon Coleman as much as Mangini or something) and we also were INTENT on taking Tyson Jackson and didn't feel he'd be there at #17.

Another rumor suggests that the Chiefs never recieved any calls, nor did the Rams or Seahawks. Apparently nobody in the NFL believed that any of those 3 teams would take Sanchez, so they weren't playing poker with us. Apparently, the feeling around the league is that Cassel is cemented as the starter and any feelers we put out about Sanchez were insincere. So if this rumor is to be believed, we never had any intention of drafting Sanchez and the entire league knew it. If true, Pioli truly did undermine his ability to trade down the second he acquired Cassel.

DaKCMan AP
04-27-2009, 10:57 AM
For what the Browns received in compensation, I'm glad we didn't trade down. They got robbed.

Buehler445
04-27-2009, 10:57 AM
I think he more underminded it when he gave Cassel a long term contract
Posted via Mobile Device

Fish
04-27-2009, 10:58 AM
Either way, it's disappointing....

FD
04-27-2009, 10:58 AM
If they offered us what they offered the Browns I bet he laughed in their faces.

RustShack
04-27-2009, 10:58 AM
There wasn't a good enough deal to trade down, whats the point?

DeezNutz
04-27-2009, 10:59 AM
If true, Pioli truly did undermine his ability to trade down the second he acquired Cassel.

There's no question that this is true.

But obviously Pioli doesn't view it negatively, since Cassel is the player he coveted.

Fine. He just better be right.

BigChiefFan
04-27-2009, 11:00 AM
I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I think we entertained the idea of trading, but weren't offered enough to lose out on our target, Tyson Jackson.

keg in kc
04-27-2009, 11:02 AM
I think we entertained the idea of trading, but weren't offered enough to lose out on our target, Tyson Jackson.That's my guess.

His comment in the press conference was something along the lines of "we didn't get any calls towards the end", which made me think that they did receive calls, but nothing serious.

Jackson was their guy. They got their guy. Hope he's good.

Brock
04-27-2009, 11:03 AM
If Pioli had traded down for what Cleveland got, he'd have a lot more than just Mecca ripping on him here.

jAZ
04-27-2009, 11:03 AM
I see nothing objectionable. We surely hurt our trade-down chances by landing our QBOTF by trading for him before, but that's just the nature of the business. Certainly not objectionable.

And I noted that during the PC, Pioli said that "towards the end" (paraphrase) no one called.

I assumed he was saying in the last 5 minutes of the pick. That's not the same thing as no one ever calling.

T-post Tom
04-27-2009, 11:04 AM
This is sure to stir up a hornets nest - it's really going to piss off the pro-Sanchez crowd. But it's also interesting information so I thought I would share. FWIW, these two rumors are somewhat contradictory, so who knows what's actually true.

The Jets reportedly called EVERY team in the top 5 except Detroit. That means they called us, so the idea that we had no chance to trade out is false if the rumor is to be believed. What it comes down to, apparently, is that we didn't want what was being offered (apparently Pioli doesn't like Kenyon Coleman as much as Mangini or something) and we also were INTENT on taking Tyson Jackson and didn't feel he'd be there at #17.

Another rumor suggests that the Chiefs never recieved any calls, nor did the Rams. Apparently nobody in the NFL believed that either team would take Sanchez, so they weren't playing poker with us. Apparently, the feeling around the league is that Cassel is cemented as the starter and any feelers we put out about Sanchez were insincere. So if this rumor is to be believed, we never had any intention of drafting Sanchez and the entire league knew it. If true, Pioli truly did undermine his ability to trade down the second he acquired Cassel.

Mike Lombardi didn't help with his report of Cassel's alleged contract.

Brock
04-27-2009, 11:05 AM
Mike Lombardi didn't help with his report of Cassel's alleged contract.

When I saw that report, I thought "there goes any trade we might have had, why is Pioli announcing this now?"

T-post Tom
04-27-2009, 11:05 AM
If Pioli had traded down for what Cleveland got, he'd have a lot more than just Mecca ripping on him here.


Yep.

Cormac
04-27-2009, 11:07 AM
I'd imagine the 2nd rumour is how it played out. I can't see that other NFL teams really thought we were legitimate contenders for Sanchez after we got Cassell. Who else takes QBs in Rd 1 and 2 in the same draft?

Besides, when we got Cassell, was Sanchez really expected to go as high as he did? I don't think Pioli did anything wrong. It was too long ago to really know how 1st day trading leverage was going to play out.

He got the QB he wants and still had the luxury of taking Sanchez if he so chose to cover his ass. I don't care so much about trade leverage. Pick the best players that best suit your needs/system. He did (in his opinion). Cassell and Jackson.

CaliforniaChief
04-27-2009, 11:07 AM
I think he more underminded it when he gave Cassel a long term contract
Posted via Mobile Device

This is probably along the lines of mountain from molehill, but I commented in another forum on the damage that Michael Lombardi might have done to the Chiefs by falsely reporting Cassel having his contract extended. This, combined with Lombardi constantly talking about how Seattle would never take Sanchez, made #3 much less desirable than #5. He should be flogged for the false Cassel report.

Deberg_1990
04-27-2009, 11:08 AM
Basically this entire draft and Pioli's rep will come down to this:

WHo will become the better QB, Cassel or Sanchez?

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 11:09 AM
When I saw that report, I thought "there goes any trade we might have had, why is Pioli announcing this now?"

WHich REALLY sucks being that there is NO contract

oldandslow
04-27-2009, 11:11 AM
If Pioli had traded down for what Cleveland got, he'd have a lot more than just Mecca ripping on him here.

This

Al Bundy
04-27-2009, 11:11 AM
Billy Devaney admitted this morning on the opening drive on Sirius he did receive calls... but none were worth trading down or even strongly considering it.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 11:13 AM
Basically this entire draft and Pioli's rep will come down to this:

WHo will become the better QB, Cassel or Sanchez?

Yep.

Deberg_1990
04-27-2009, 11:15 AM
Yep.

For the record, i dont think Cassel will be a flop. Hes proven already he can play and win games.

My question is: Can he become a playoff winning QB? Can he be the Brady/Roethisberger type that can make plays with 2:00 minutes on the clock with a game winning drive?

Chiefnj2
04-27-2009, 11:16 AM
KC was a potential trade partner because of the rumors that Seattle was interested in Sanchez and a team would have to leap frog them to land him. If KC really wanted Sanchez they wouldn't have dealt the pick. You don't f around with QB decisions.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 11:17 AM
For the record, i dont think Cassel will be a flop. Hes proven already he can play and win games.

My question is: Can he become a playoff winning QB? Can he be the Brady/Roethisberger type that can make plays with 2:00 minutes on the clock with a game winning drive?

I agree 100%.

I think Cassel has a very high floor. I think he can be a solid game-manager.

The question is whether or not Cassel has a high CEILING and can be a champion. Of that, I'm not so sure - worried, in fact.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 11:18 AM
KC was a potential trade partner because of the rumors that Seattle was interested in Sanchez and a team would have to leap frog them to land him. If KC really wanted Sanchez they wouldn't have dealt the pick. You don't f around with QB decisions.

Oops, forgot to mention that in the thread starter.

In the second rumor, Seattle was also mentioned.

No team thought the Rams, Chiefs, or Seahawks would take a QB. So basically nobody bought the rumors about Seattle's interest in Sanchez.

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 11:21 AM
Tim Ruskell's PC did more damage to our ability to trade down than the Lombardi report.

Dicky McElephant
04-27-2009, 11:25 AM
The Browns pretty much got raped in that trade anyways. I think that I would have questioned Pioli even more then I did for the Jackson pick if he would've accepted a 1st, 2nd and scrubs for the #3 pick.

LaChapelle
04-27-2009, 11:31 AM
Will anyone deal with the Browns again, without leaving a bloody hole? Has anyone dealt with the Redskins since Snyder became a trading slut, and not raped him?

What I'm saying is Pioli's trades have to be made with the Chief's, and his, reps on the line. A bad deal this weekend could have made them unsavory trade partner latter. No one wants to deal fairly with incompetence. It tarnishes you.

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 11:33 AM
The Browns pretty much got raped in that trade anyways. I think that I would have questioned Pioli even more then I did for the Jackson pick if he would've accepted a 1st, 2nd and scrubs for the #3 pick.

Spot on, at first I was pissed about bypassing Raji (or even Crabtree) for this kid, but then again, it seems like they must have turned sour on Raji for some reason (work ethic?) and we definitely needed help in stopping the run. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But that doesn't even compare to how outraged I would have been to take the deal Cleveland did.

CoMoChief
04-27-2009, 11:34 AM
I think it was fuckin stupid to sign Cassell to that 6 yr deal the day before the draft.

That right there will tell anyone that he's gonna be the starter. The Chiefs weren't going to pay Sanchez top 3 money AND pay Cassell all that money as well. IMO Pioli screwed the pooch on that.

If the Jets called KC and wanted to trade up, IMO Tyson Jackson would have been there at the Jets 5th overall pick. In this scenario the Jets would have had to offer the Chiefs something equivalent to their 1st (5th overall) and 3rd (65th overall) this season, and then their 2nd rd pick (TBD) next season.

Had this had happend I would have gone this route.

1 - DE Tyson Jackson (LSU)
3 - DE/OLB Michael Johnson (GTech)
3 - TE Chase Coffman (MU)
4 - OG Duke Robinson (OU)
5 - RB Javon Ringer (MSU)
6 - RT Colin Brown (MU)
7 - WR Demetrius Byrd (LSU)
7 - PK Graham Gano (FSU)
7 - QB Graham Harrell (TTU)

OnTheWarpath58
04-27-2009, 11:37 AM
I think it was fuckin stupid to sign Cassell to that 6 yr deal the day before the draft.

That right there will tell anyone that he's gonna be the starter. The Chiefs weren't going to pay Sanchez top 3 money AND pay Cassell all that money as well. IMO Pioli screwed the pooch on that.

And then there's that MINOR detail - that Cassel IS NOT signed to a long-term deal, that the report was bogus.

LaChapelle
04-27-2009, 11:37 AM
? 5th?

DaWolf
04-27-2009, 11:40 AM
I think it is probably likely that we had an opportunity to trade down, but we were set on Jackson and didn't get an offer that outweighed the risk of missing on him. If you take Pioli's two statements from yesterday, it makes sense from that perspective. A) They felt Jackson was the perfect guy in this draft to allow them to play defense the way they want to play it, and B) Pioli likes to trade picks, but he didn't get an offer that he liked, so he didn't deal the picks.

As everyone here has a different opinion on what we should have done and who has value, this may be looked at as a mistake. But if the front office was serious about getting this guy, the options really narrowed. Also, as it became evident that the Seahawks were going to take Curry if he were there, really the only risk was whether or not we would take Curry and leave the Seahawks thinking about Sanchez. And really at that point it is probably more likely you could make a trade with the Seahawks as they indicated they did not need Sanchez. So really I don't see the Chiefs getting market value for a trade down, teams could afford to lowball Pioli. And he obviously was not going to let Jackson slip down so another team installing the 3-4 could get him, IE Denver...

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 11:41 AM
I think it was ****in stupid to sign Cassell to that 6 yr deal the day before the draft.

That right there will tell anyone that he's gonna be the starter. The Chiefs weren't going to pay Sanchez top 3 money AND pay Cassell all that money as well. IMO Pioli screwed the pooch on that.

If the Jets called KC and wanted to trade up, IMO Tyson Jackson would have been there at the Jets 5th overall pick. In this scenario the Jets would have had to offer the Chiefs something equivalent to their 1st (5th overall) and 3rd (65th overall) this season, and then their 2nd rd pick (TBD) next season.

Had this had happend I would have gone this route.

1 - DE Tyson Jackson (LSU)
3 - DE/OLB Michael Johnson (GTech)
3 - TE Chase Coffman (MU)
4 - OG Duke Robinson (OU)
5 - RB Javon Ringer (MSU)
6 - RT Colin Brown (MU)
7 - WR Demetrius Byrd (LSU)
7 - PK Graham Gano (FSU)
7 - QB Graham Harrell (TTU)

I'm having trouble following, the Jets had #17, they traded up to #3...Jackson WAS NOT going to be there at 17.

ct
04-27-2009, 11:43 AM
I think it was ****in stupid to sign Cassell to that 6 yr deal the day before the draft.

That right there will tell anyone that he's gonna be the starter. The Chiefs weren't going to pay Sanchez top 3 money AND pay Cassell all that money as well. IMO Pioli screwed the pooch on that.

If the Jets called KC and wanted to trade up, IMO Tyson Jackson would have been there at the Jets 5th overall pick. In this scenario the Jets would have had to offer the Chiefs something equivalent to their 1st (5th overall) and 3rd (65th overall) this season, and then their 2nd rd pick (TBD) next season.

Had this had happend I would have gone this route.

1 - DE Tyson Jackson (LSU)
3 - DE/OLB Michael Johnson (GTech)
3 - TE Chase Coffman (MU)
4 - OG Duke Robinson (OU)
5 - RB Javon Ringer (MSU)
6 - RT Colin Brown (MU)
7 - WR Demetrius Byrd (LSU)
7 - PK Graham Gano (FSU)
7 - QB Graham Harrell (TTU)

Seriously? We're not talkin a move down from 3 to 5, cause the Jets were holding #17. Where you been?

CoMoChief
04-27-2009, 11:47 AM
I'm having trouble following, the Jets had #17, they traded up to #3...Jackson WAS NOT going to be there at 17.

oh thats right me forget i didnt watch the draft

the Talking Can
04-27-2009, 11:47 AM
Cassel was the starter the minute we traded for him....that was never a question to any sane human

dirk digler
04-27-2009, 11:48 AM
Basically this entire draft and Pioli's rep will come down to this:

WHo will become the better QB, Cassel or Sanchez?

double yep

CoMoChief
04-27-2009, 11:48 AM
FUCK MY LIFE.......what else?

the Talking Can
04-27-2009, 11:49 AM
that trade happened because Mangini had been the Jets coach and knew the players....it wouldn't make any sense for another team, nor would there have been the inside connections to make it all happen...

Chiefnj2
04-27-2009, 11:49 AM
I'm having trouble following, the Jets had #17, they traded up to #3...Jackson WAS NOT going to be there at 17.

Who do you think was going to take Jackson before 17?

the Talking Can
04-27-2009, 11:50 AM
I think it was ****in stupid to sign Cassell to that 6 yr deal the day before the draft.

That right there will tell anyone that he's gonna be the starter. The Chiefs weren't going to pay Sanchez top 3 money AND pay Cassell all that money as well. IMO Pioli screwed the pooch on that.

If the Jets called KC and wanted to trade up, IMO Tyson Jackson would have been there at the Jets 5th overall pick. In this scenario the Jets would have had to offer the Chiefs something equivalent to their 1st (5th overall) and 3rd (65th overall) this season, and then their 2nd rd pick (TBD) next season.

Had this had happend I would have gone this route.

1 - DE Tyson Jackson (LSU)
3 - DE/OLB Michael Johnson (GTech)
3 - TE Chase Coffman (MU)
4 - OG Duke Robinson (OU)
5 - RB Javon Ringer (MSU)
6 - RT Colin Brown (MU)
7 - WR Demetrius Byrd (LSU)
7 - PK Graham Gano (FSU)
7 - QB Graham Harrell (TTU)

are you retarded?

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 11:50 AM
Basically this entire draft and Pioli's rep will come down to this:

WHo will become the better QB, Cassel or Sanchez?

Crux Accomplished.

OnTheWarpath58
04-27-2009, 11:50 AM
are you retarded?

LMAO

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 11:51 AM
Who do you think was going to take Jackson before 17?

Are you kidding me? Packers + Broncos + Chargers, just to name a few...

the Talking Can
04-27-2009, 11:53 AM
Who do you think was going to take Jackson before 17?

Cleveland was taking him at 5 according to draft reports...we took him and they traded out

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 11:55 AM
Are you kidding me? Packers + Broncos + Chargers, just to name a few...

BROWNS, pats would have tried to get there(reports say they would have gone to #8 for him)

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 11:57 AM
BROWNS, pats would have tried to get there(reports say they would have gone to #8 for him)

Definitely the Browns (forgot about them - in fact, the Jets should send Pioli a thank-you card - they may have stayed put if we hadn't picked him), I doubt the Pats had any interest in moving into top ten, maybe at 11

OnTheWarpath58
04-27-2009, 11:57 AM
Cleveland was taking him at 5 according to draft reports...we took him and they traded out

BROWNS, pats would have tried to get there(reports say they would have gone to #8 for him)

Yeah, and there were "reports" that Cassel had signed a long term deal worth $36M guaranteed before the draft.

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 11:58 AM
Yeah, and there were "reports" that Cassel had signed a long term deal worth $36M guaranteed before the draft.

That "source" must have been Tannabeum (sp?) :)

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 11:59 AM
Yeah, and there were "reports" that Cassel had signed a long term deal worth $36M guaranteed before the draft.

those "reports" were probably released by st louis or seattle just to fuck us. do you not believe that BB was interested in jackson?

Iowanian
04-27-2009, 12:01 PM
If Pioli had made the trade for Cassel and Vrabel for the 2nd on Saturday, the board would have felt differently about the entire deal IMO.

It would have "felt" more like the Chiefs did something good on Draft day.

LaChapelle
04-27-2009, 12:02 PM
What kind of terms are Pioli and Mangini on? Post spygate.

Brock
04-27-2009, 12:02 PM
I think it was ****in stupid to sign Cassell to that 6 yr deal the day before the draft.


:drool: dumbass.

the Talking Can
04-27-2009, 12:02 PM
Yeah, and there were "reports" that Cassel had signed a long term deal worth $36M guaranteed before the draft.

yea for you

OnTheWarpath58
04-27-2009, 12:03 PM
those "reports" were probably released by st louis or seattle just to fuck us. do you not believe that BB was interested in jackson?

Not one bit.

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 12:03 PM
What kind of terms are Pioli and Mangini on? Post spygate.

Not good

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 12:04 PM
Not one bit.

ROFL ok

DaWolf
04-27-2009, 12:04 PM
Basically this entire draft and Pioli's rep will come down to this:

WHo will become the better QB, Cassel or Sanchez?

Sanchez may wind up better than Cassel, however if Cassel is a winner, then you're fine either way. Pioli's rep will come down to whether he can build a winning team around his QB. With either Sanchez or Cassel, that's the bottom line. You can say Philip Rivers is a better QB than Big Ben, Or Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady, but Big Ben and Brady know how to lead their particular teams and win with their teams, so you wouldn't trade them for anyone. They've got great teams built around them.

Now if Cassel sucks, it definitely makes Pioli look like a dumbass. But no matter who it is, Pioli's rep will really come down to can he build a winning football team that will not only reach the playoffs, but win in the playoffs. If he doesn't, he's no better than his predecessor...

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 12:09 PM
Sanchez may wind up better than Cassel, however if Cassel is a winner, then you're fine either way. Pioli's rep will come down to whether he can build a winning team around his QB. With either Sanchez or Cassel, that's the bottom line. You can say Philip Rivers is a better QB than Big Ben, Or Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady, but Big Ben and Brady know how to lead their particular teams and win with their teams, so you wouldn't trade them for anyone. They've got great teams built around them.

Now if Cassel sucks, it definitely makes Pioli look like a dumbass. But no matter who it is, Pioli's rep will really come down to can he build a winning football team that will not only reach the playoffs, but win in the playoffs. If he doesn't, he's no better than his predecessor...

I see where you're coming from, and agree with you to a certain extent, but I also think the decision will still be questioned if Cassel can't lead a team to victory with the game on the line with mediocre supporting cast and Sanchez shows he can, esp. if he flashes this year.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 12:09 PM
I'm having trouble following, the Jets had #17, they traded up to #3...Jackson WAS NOT going to be there at 17.

The Browns were reportedly interested in taking him at #5. The Broncos and Patriots both had him on their radar as well. The idea we could have traded down to #17 and gotten Jackson is fallacious.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 12:10 PM
Who do you think was going to take Jackson before 17?

The Browns for one. Or the Broncos.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 12:12 PM
If Pioli had made the trade for Cassel and Vrabel for the 2nd on Saturday, the board would have felt differently about the entire deal IMO.

Probably not, because it would have been balanced out by an inflated price tag.

The reason we got Cassel for the #34 in the first place was because Belichek wanted rid of him QUICKLY. We likely would have paid a much higher price in picks if we would have waited, IF he was even still available.

The bottom line is that we played our hand in February and what's done is done.

SenselessChiefsFan
04-27-2009, 12:13 PM
I think he more underminded it when he gave Cassel a long term contract
Posted via Mobile Device

But, he didn't. It was rumor. Perhaps to kill the Chiefs draft leverage?

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 12:14 PM
Probably not, because it would have been balanced out by an inflated price tag.

The reason we got Cassel for the #34 in the first place was because Belichek wanted rid of him QUICKLY. We likely would have paid a much higher price in picks if we would have waited, IF he was even still available.

The bottom line is that we played our hand in February and what's done is done.

We would have been better off to give up the 3rd overall for Cassel. Our absence in the 2nd round was a killer.

EyePod
04-27-2009, 12:16 PM
For what the Browns received in compensation, I'm glad we didn't trade down. They got robbed.

Mangini got some of his guys back. It wasn't as bad as it looks.

Chiefnj2
04-27-2009, 12:18 PM
The Browns for one. Or the Broncos.

It seems to me that the Browns wanted picks. Maybe the Broncos, but they had a bunch of odd picks, so who knows what their board really looked like.

chiefzilla1501
04-27-2009, 12:21 PM
I actually don't think the Browns got completely robbed. However, unlike the Chiefs, the Browns really didn't have a lot on the top of the board that they were overly excited about. Trading down is one thing, but Tyson Jackson and Raji would have both been off the board, therefore, trading down that low would have been a mistake.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 12:23 PM
We would have been better off to give up the 3rd overall for Cassel. Our absence in the 2nd round was a killer.

You're probably right. At least at that point, we would have been paying just Cassel the money instead of Cassel AND Jackson.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 12:23 PM
It seems to me that the Browns wanted picks. Maybe the Broncos, but they had a bunch of odd picks, so who knows what their board really looked like.

Well, the rumor was that the Browns weren't looking for picks until they saw the Chiefs take Jackson. FWIW.

SenselessChiefsFan
04-27-2009, 12:24 PM
We would have been better off to give up the 3rd overall for Cassel. Our absence in the 2nd round was a killer.

Yeah... wait, what?

Are you a freaking moron?

There is no one they could have drafted in the second round that they couldn't have drafted in the first.

NEWS FLASH: There were 31 players that they could draft in the first that they would not have been able to draft in the second.

The Chiefs got Cassel and the best 3-4 end. That doesn't happen if they give up their first.

SenselessChiefsFan
04-27-2009, 12:26 PM
You're probably right. At least at that point, we would have been paying just Cassel the money instead of Cassel AND Jackson.


I am gravely dissapointed in you. The Chiefs have the best 3-4 end in the draft and Cassel.

The Chiefs clearly liked this guy because they could have traded down. They had this guy as 'their' guy. They would have had NO shot at this guy if they trade that pick for Cassel.

BigRock
04-27-2009, 12:26 PM
I don't think the Cassel contract rumor meant anything. There was never a thought in anyone's mind that we might take a QB. It's not like people thought we might take Sanchez, and then oh wait, they just signed Cassel, hang up the phone.

The only leverage we had for a trade-down was the hope that other teams wanted to beat each other to the punch for Sanchez. Clearly nobody wanted to go as high as #3 to do it. And the only reason a deal got done at #5 was due to Mangini's love for some of his old Jets players.

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 12:29 PM
I don't think the Cassel contract rumor meant anything. There was never a thought in anyone's mind that we might take a QB. It's not like people thought we might take Sanchez, and then oh wait, they just signed Cassel, hang up the phone.

The only leverage we had for a trade-down was the hope that other teams wanted to beat each other to the punch for Sanchez. Clearly nobody wanted to go as high as #3 to do it. And the only reason a deal got done at #5 was due to Mangini's love for some of his old Jets players.

That and we took their player...Tim Ruskell's PC Thurs hurt more than the rumor...

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 12:33 PM
I am gravely dissapointed in you. The Chiefs have the best 3-4 end in the draft and Cassel.

The Chiefs clearly liked this guy because they could have traded down. They had this guy as 'their' guy. They would have had NO shot at this guy if they trade that pick for Cassel.

Don't be disappointed. I'm just stating how I feel.

I would PREFER not to pay $30M in guarantees to a 2-gap DE. But other than that, I'm perfectly fine with the pick and the logic behind it.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 12:34 PM
I don't think the Cassel contract rumor meant anything. There was never a thought in anyone's mind that we might take a QB. It's not like people thought we might take Sanchez, and then oh wait, they just signed Cassel, hang up the phone.

The only leverage we had for a trade-down was the hope that other teams wanted to beat each other to the punch for Sanchez. Clearly nobody wanted to go as high as #3 to do it. And the only reason a deal got done at #5 was due to Mangini's love for some of his old Jets players.

Right. If the rumors are true, the Cassel trade ruined our chances of trading down WEEKS ago and the rumors about the contract were inconsquential.

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Yeah... wait, what?

Are you a freaking moron?

There is no one they could have drafted in the second round that they couldn't have drafted in the first.

NEWS FLASH: There were 31 players that they could draft in the first that they would not have been able to draft in the second.

The Chiefs got Cassel and the best 3-4 end. That doesn't happen if they give up their first.

Are YOU a freakin' moron?????

I've watched you post repeatedly about how there was "no one in the top worth it", and now you want to defend overpaying for fucking DE whose talent could have been found ANYWHERE in the 2cd???????

You need to get your take/story/philosophy straight.
Ass Hat.

ChiefRon
04-27-2009, 12:40 PM
It's a moot point - NE had no interest in #3 anyway - NONE

Crush
04-27-2009, 12:54 PM
The value of the Top 5 is pretty much shot anyway. Without explicit establishment of a rookie slot system in the next CBA, no one is going to touch the Top 5 with a ten foot poll without giving up very little in a trade.

Basileus777
04-27-2009, 12:56 PM
The Browns traded down because they are fucking cheap, there is no other explanation for that shit deal they took. That Browns deal and Pioli's comments paint a pretty bleak picture of any opportunities to trade down we might have had.

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 01:01 PM
Are YOU a freakin' moron?????

I've watched you post repeatedly about how there was "no one in the top worth it", and now you want to defend overpaying for fucking DE whose talent could have been found ANYWHERE in the 2cd???????

You need to get your take/story/philosophy straight.
Ass Hat.

really? you really think jackson would have been available in the 2nd? or do you think he wasnt the top rated 3-4 DE in the draft?

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 01:07 PM
really? you really think jackson would have been available in the 2nd? or do you think he wasnt the top rated 3-4 DE in the draft?

I never said Jackson would be available and I never said he wasn't "top-rated" (which apparently means SO much to CP posters..........NOT),
I said the same goddamned thing we've been saying for months about position and value.

But you knew that already because I POSTED it already.

Gravedigger
04-27-2009, 01:08 PM
When Pioli said there wasn't anyone in the end that called to make a good offer you knew he was lying, there just wasn't anyone that called to make an offer to overwrite taking Jackson in their minds. The first scenario seems more real, Denver would've taken Jackson over us more than likely.

Basileus777
04-27-2009, 01:10 PM
When Pioli said there wasn't anyone in the end that called to make a good offer you knew he was lying

On what basis do you know this? The only evidence that we have is the deal Cleveland took, and that is pretty convincing evidence that no one made a good offer.

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 01:13 PM
I never said Jackson would be available and I never said he wasn't "top-rated" (which apparently means SO much to CP posters..........NOT),
I said the same goddamned thing we've been saying for months about position and value.

But you knew that already because I POSTED it already.

YET YOU said that his talent could have been found in the 2nd. so who in your mind was just as talented at his position in the 2nd round?


and some positions hold more value to different teams. i'm sure atlanta would have been chomping at the bit to draft stafford if they had the #1

Gravedigger
04-27-2009, 01:15 PM
On what basis do you know this? The only evidence that we have is the deal Cleveland took, and that is pretty convincing evidence that no one made a good offer.

Cause Pioli doesn't tell us anything, he keeps it mum on all levels, theres alot of things that GM's don't tell the fans and to think that he was telling the truth is more ridiculous than to think he wasn't telling us the truth. I have no basis, just reason.

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 01:19 PM
YET YOU said that his talent could have been found in the 2nd. so who in your mind was just as talented at his position in the 2nd round?


and some positions hold more value to different teams. i'm sure atlanta would have been chomping at the bit to draft stafford if they had the #1

Would you take Dorsey in the first knowing now what you didn't know then?

joesomebody
04-27-2009, 01:35 PM
I was thinking about this Saturday night. Would you rather be the #1 overall pick (Stafford) and get to go live in Detroit and play for the Lions, or be the #5 overall pick, live in New York City, and play for the Jets?

I think Sanchez got the better deal by a long shot. Broadway Sanchez.

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 01:35 PM
Would you take Dorsey in the first knowing now what you didn't know then?

I fail to see where that has any bearing on this.


once again do you think someone with the same talent level as jackson was available in the 2nd round? if so who?

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 01:38 PM
I fail to see where that has any bearing on this.


once again do you think someone with the same talent level as jackson was available in the 2nd round? if so who?

I'm sure there were no other good DE's as god-like as Jackson. You win.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 01:44 PM
really? you really think jackson would have been available in the 2nd? or do you think he wasnt the top rated 3-4 DE in the draft?

Scott Wright had him rated as the 12th-best PLAYER in the entire draft.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 01:46 PM
I was thinking about this Saturday night. Would you rather be the #1 overall pick (Stafford) and get to go live in Detroit and play for the Lions, or be the #5 overall pick, live in New York City, and play for the Jets?

I think Sanchez got the better deal by a long shot. Broadway Sanchez.

No freaking way.

The Lions suck and have always sucked. If they continue to suck, it's pretty much what everybody expected. Plus he's got $41M in the bank.

The pressure is squarely on Sanchez.

SenselessChiefsFan
04-27-2009, 01:50 PM
Are YOU a freakin' moron?????

I've watched you post repeatedly about how there was "no one in the top worth it", and now you want to defend overpaying for ****ing DE whose talent could have been found ANYWHERE in the 2cd???????

You need to get your take/story/philosophy straight.
Ass Hat.

There was no 3-4 DE of Jackson's quality in the second round.

Yeah, the Chiefs may pay too much, but it isn't my money and they aren't in any trouble with the cap. Stupid to think that it would be better to get a lesser player to save money.

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 02:31 PM
I'm sure there were no other good DE's as god-like as Jackson. You win.

DIDNT SAY THAT, and for the record i wasnt for dorsey last year, i thought we should have targeted rodgers-cromartie. now back to the subject at hand you still havent said WHO you think is just as good available in the 2nd rd.

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 02:32 PM
Scott Wright had him rated as the 12th-best PLAYER in the entire draft.

and gosselin(sp) had him at 6, yet pioli should be fired for drafting him at 3ROFL

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 02:37 PM
There was no 3-4 DE of Jackson's quality in the second round.

Yeah, the Chiefs may pay too much, but it isn't my money and they aren't in any trouble with the cap. Stupid to think that it would be better to get a lesser player to save money.

But there's "no one in the top 5 worth it".

This has been your stance from day 1. Why the change now?

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 02:37 PM
But there's "no one in the top 5 worth it".

This has been your stance from day 1. Why the change now?

so what to do? not pick????

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 02:52 PM
DIDNT SAY THAT, and for the record i wasnt for dorsey last year, i thought we should have targeted rodgers-cromartie. now back to the subject at hand you still havent said WHO you think is just as good available in the 2nd rd.

No one was looking at DE's as a possibility for 3rd overall until two days before the draft. You'll have to excuse me if I didn't have 2 weeks to look in to the entire college circuit to find Jackson's equal.

The bottom line here is; this draft was a fucking disaster. We all thought Pioli was SOOOOOOOO smart for being able to retain that 3rd overall, and all it did was fuck us.
You may not have been able to get a DE that matched Jackson percentage for percentage, but you MIGHT have been able to get some good protection for Cassel.
Rounds 3 through 7 could have ended up not being such an absurd fucking laugh-fest all the way down to our newest kicker.

Belichick clearly won here.

bowener
04-27-2009, 02:56 PM
For what the Browns received in compensation, I'm glad we didn't trade down. They got robbed.

Can you imagine what would have happened here if we accepted that trade at #3?

Jackson would look like a fucking diamond compared to trading down in that scenario.

SBK
04-27-2009, 02:56 PM
If Pioli hadn't traded for Cassel the St Louis would have got a haul for the #2 and we'd be rolling with Thigpen.

In hindsight I don't think Sanchez would have been at 3 if we only had Thigpen.
Posted via Mobile Device

MoreLemonPledge
04-27-2009, 02:59 PM
If Pioli hadn't traded for Cassel the St Louis would have got a haul for the #2 and we'd be rolling with Thigpen.

In hindsight I don't think Sanchez would have been at 3 if we only had Thigpen.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm glad somebody realized this. We would have been jumped or would have had to outbid to move up to 2 if we wanted to get Sanchez.

HemiEd
04-27-2009, 03:01 PM
so what to do? not pick????

You know, early on Saturday proceedings, one of the stations mentioned that teams might actually do just that.

I can't remember whether it was ESPN or NFL Network, but one clearly did discuss this possibility.


Then, I didn't hear another thing about it the rest of the weekend. I wonder if the NFL didn't squash those discussions?

MoreLemonPledge
04-27-2009, 03:04 PM
You know, early on Saturday proceedings, one of the stations mentioned that teams might actually do just that.

I can't remember whether it was ESPN or NFL Network, but one clearly did discuss this possibility.


Then, I didn't hear another thing about it the rest of the weekend. I wonder if the NFL didn't squash those discussions?

It was NFLN when the Rams were about to pick. The guy practically spouted it off as fact.

htismaqe
04-27-2009, 03:17 PM
If Pioli hadn't traded for Cassel the St Louis would have got a haul for the #2 and we'd be rolling with Thigpen.

In hindsight I don't think Sanchez would have been at 3 if we only had Thigpen.
Posted via Mobile Device

Very, very possible.

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 04:18 PM
No one was looking at DE's as a possibility for 3rd overall until two days before the draft. You'll have to excuse me if I didn't have 2 weeks to look in to the entire college circuit to find Jackson's equal.

The bottom line here is; this draft was a fucking disaster. We all thought Pioli was SOOOOOOOO smart for being able to retain that 3rd overall, and all it did was fuck us.
You may not have been able to get a DE that matched Jackson percentage for percentage, but you MIGHT have been able to get some good protection for Cassel.
Rounds 3 through 7 could have ended up not being such an absurd fucking laugh-fest all the way down to our newest kicker.

Belichick clearly won here.

but you HAVE had since saturday and also have the benefit of seeing who other teams picked yet still cant come up with a name:shake: and how did belichek win here? what does he have to do with this?

JASONSAUTO
04-27-2009, 04:19 PM
You know, early on Saturday proceedings, one of the stations mentioned that teams might actually do just that.

I can't remember whether it was ESPN or NFL Network, but one clearly did discuss this possibility.


Then, I didn't hear another thing about it the rest of the weekend. I wonder if the NFL didn't squash those discussions?


problem with that(as was already discussed leading up to the draft) is that whoever we did end up picking would probably still WANT the #3 money


edit: and ed i wasnt pointing the discussed part at you, just stating that others had said this before

Raised On Riots
04-27-2009, 04:28 PM
but you HAVE had since saturday and also have the benefit of seeing who other teams picked yet still cant come up with a name:shake: and how did belichek win here? what does he have to do with this?

1) How about because I don't fucking care?

2) How about because we got stuck with a 3rd that was pretty much useless?

But please, go on and tell me how great this draft was, and in what fantastic shape we are.