PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Holmgren: "I wish I liked [Clausen] more..."


DaWolf
03-21-2010, 04:59 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/21/holmgren-on-clausen-i-wish-i-liked-it-more/

Mike Holmgren has picked up two quarterbacks this offseason, and says he plans to draft another.

Just don't expect Holmgren to select one in the first two rounds. Holmgren never has drafted a quarterback that early before, and he doesn't plan to this year.

"This year it would be pretty hard to use the second [round] pick to get a quarterback. It would be pretty hard for me," Holmgren said to Tony Grossi of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer. "Next year might be easier. . . . But I'd have to have another second-round pick [to take a quarterback in the second round]."

Holmgren seems likely to have a chance to take Jimmy Clausen with the seventh overall pick. But that's not going to happen either.

"I wish I liked [Clausen] more," Holmgren said. "You know how you have a type of player that you like? It's not scientific. People like him a lot. He'll go high. But it would be hard for me [to take him]."

Wow. Unless that's a serious misdirection play, Holmgren's candor shows why he wanted to invest so much in veteran quarterbacks this offseason.

ClevelandBronco
03-21-2010, 05:02 PM
Good. At this moment Clausen is an overpriced gamble.

DaneMcCloud
03-21-2010, 05:07 PM
Wow!

It'll be curious to see how this turns out in the next 5-7 years.

TheGuardian
03-21-2010, 05:13 PM
It's hard for me to believe how many guys are on Clausen's jock on this board.

We're not taking him. Nor should we.

Hog Farmer
03-21-2010, 05:18 PM
Holmgren didn't coach him the last three years. If we draft him I'm OK with it.

LaChapelle
03-21-2010, 05:20 PM
He couldn't crack open the jar lid

Ralphy Boy
03-21-2010, 05:20 PM
He was high on Jake though? I'm not high on Jimmy either, but old Mike lost some credibility with signing Jake.

-King-
03-21-2010, 05:44 PM
He was high on Jake though? I'm not high on Jimmy either, but old Mike lost some credibility with signing Jake.

Stop gap till next season where the QB class should be better.

Von Dumbass
03-21-2010, 06:25 PM
Holmgren knows QB's better than anyone so he must suck/ Chiefs Planet after the Brady Quinn trade

Bane
03-21-2010, 06:26 PM
Holmgren knows QB's better than anyone so he must suck\ Chiefs Planet after the Brady Quinn trade

The Donkfukks are going to own the AFCW,were 6-0 bitches.Ask twatter!!/Knowmo
And as far as Brady Quinn goes,do you really wanna know what you guys got in Quinn? David car is what you got....

BigMeatballDave
03-21-2010, 06:36 PM
It's hard for me to believe how many guys are on Clausen's jock on this board.

We're not taking him. Nor should we.this franchise will never have a franchise QB because of we're too chickenshit to take a chance on one. I'm not high on him, but you have to take a shot sometime.
Posted via Mobile Device

Chocolate Hog
03-21-2010, 06:41 PM
How do you know he's not posturing?

DeezNutz
03-21-2010, 06:41 PM
How do you know he's not posturing?

I saw the honesty in his eyes.

Chocolate Hog
03-21-2010, 06:44 PM
I saw the honesty in his eyes.

lol i've just never seen a GM or anyone tip there hand like this before the draft.

Bane
03-21-2010, 06:46 PM
this franchise will never have a franchise QB because of we're too chickenshit to take a chance on one. I'm not high on him, but you have to take a shot sometime.
Posted via Mobile Device

I've just about give up on us taking a QB early like that,but it doesn't stop me from getting excited when one that seems really good comes out.

milkman
03-21-2010, 06:50 PM
this franchise will never have a franchise QB because of we're too chickenshit to take a chance on one. I'm not high on him, but you have to take a shot sometime.
Posted via Mobile Device

It really creates quite a connundrum.

On the one hand, you don't like Clausen as a prospect and hope that Pioli stays the hell away from him.

On the other hand, taking Clausen would serve to show that Pioli isn't afarid to draft a QB high, and isn't afraid to make decisions that essentially show that he made a mistake with an earlier decision.

Mecca
03-21-2010, 06:52 PM
Now if you don't believe in a QB you shouldn't take him, you don't take one just to take one.

On the other hand the idea that Holmgren just knows QB's a little stupid too, this guy seems to think Seneca Wallace is good.

DeezNutz
03-21-2010, 07:00 PM
I'm all for drafting a QB high, but I don't think that ____ is worth it. /TF

milkman
03-21-2010, 07:02 PM
Now if you don't believe in a QB you shouldn't take him, you don't take one just to take one.

On the other hand the idea that Holmgren just knows QB's a little stupid too, this guy seems to think Seneca Wallace is good.

I think that's a bit ingenuous mecca.

He didn't bring Wallace and hand him a the strating job.

He inherited a shitty QB situation, and Wallace is a guy he's worked with.

But this isn't a Pioli/Cassel scenario.

He knows he needs to find a QB, but his hands are somewhat tied.

penchief
03-21-2010, 07:05 PM
Now if you don't believe in a QB you shouldn't take him, you don't take one just to take one.

On the other hand the idea that Holmgren just knows QB's a little stupid too, this guy seems to think Seneca Wallace is good.

He knows what he's got in Wallace and he fits his system. And he seems to think that it's better than what he had in Anderson or Quinn. It looks as though Delhomme is going to start for a year and Wallace will be his insurance.

I don't think that his acquiring Wallace is an indictment of Holmgren's quarterback acumen.

tk13
03-21-2010, 07:09 PM
Plus it's not like the Browns are breaking the bank for either guy. Delhomme is going to be overpaid... but it's not going to cripple them 5 years down the road like drafting the wrong QB will.

Deberg_1990
03-21-2010, 07:10 PM
Now if you don't believe in a QB you shouldn't take him, you don't take one just to take one.

On the other hand the idea that Holmgren just knows QB's a little stupid too, this guy seems to think Seneca Wallace is good.

Im pretty sure deep down he knows Wallace isnt a "franchise QB".

IM not sure Holmgren has ever been in a position to draft a QB high? Most of his teams have been at least been mediocre.

When he started in Green Bay he had both Majekowki and Favre...and with Seattle he brought over Hasselbeck with him.

Tuckdaddy
03-21-2010, 07:20 PM
Holmgren didn't coach him the last three years. If we draft him I'm OK with it.

Hell no. We don't need him. First rounders are to fill positions. Scott is not going to fire Matt unless flops this season.

DaneMcCloud
03-21-2010, 07:23 PM
Plus it's not like the Browns are breaking the bank for either guy. Delhomme is going to be overpaid... but it's not going to cripple them 5 years down the road like drafting the wrong QB will.

Oh, you mean like Chargers?

KCDC
03-21-2010, 07:28 PM
I think Holmgren is likely being honest, as much as he paid Jake. I think he hopes to draft a QB late in this draft as a development while Delhomme carries them in a transitional year. Seneca gets some snaps and a 5th round QB gets a clipboard. Then, next year, he can consider going for a first rounder QB if his 5th rounder does not impress.

It is rare to tip ones hand like that; but, I can think it would be genuine. Signing Jake was the signal.

As for Clausen, normally, I would not urge us to use our #5 on him. But, since Weiss knows him best, I'd support it if they did. Better to tempt Buffalo to trade up, but I don't see that happening, as Cleveland bows out, Oakland won't give up on Russell just yet, and Seattle just broke the bank for Whitehurst. So, they sit back. We get Berry and call it a day.

Mecca
03-21-2010, 07:36 PM
Hasselbeck is the nice example, Favre was Ron Wolf's guy, he wanted him all along.

Wallace doesn't even fit the system, anytime he's played the team he was playing for turned into a complete shit house.

Just saying someone "knows QB's" I think is a little much, QB's are gambles, by this token you could say Mike Martz knows QB's because at 1 point he had a nice string of them.

Sweet Daddy Hate
03-21-2010, 07:41 PM
"Holmgren has never drafted a QB that early before"...And that's why Elway, even old as fuck, trumps you and Favre and denies you a second ring.
And that's why you lose to Pittsburgh in the SB, dumbass.

Tribal Warfare
03-21-2010, 08:04 PM
Hasselbeck is the nice example, Favre was Ron Wolf's guy, he wanted him all along.

Wallace doesn't even fit the system, anytime he's played the team he was playing for turned into a complete shit house.

Just saying someone "knows QB's" I think is a little much, QB's are gambles, by this token you could say Mike Martz knows QB's because at 1 point he had a nice string of them.

Holmgrem also had Mark Brunell as a backup to Farve, if anything he knows how to develop a QB.

TheGuardian
03-21-2010, 08:19 PM
this franchise will never have a franchise QB because of we're too chickenshit to take a chance on one. I'm not high on him, but you have to take a shot sometime.
Posted via Mobile Device

You don't take a shot for the sake of taking it. If you were talking about a 5th year senior who had no mechanic problems, foot work was almost perfect already and had the reputation of a workaholic and he won in college, FINE. Clausen doesn't fit that. He's not a franchise QB just like Sanchez isn't one. Taking chances for the sake of it makes no sense.

Deberg_1990
03-21-2010, 08:46 PM
He's not a franchise QB just like Sanchez isn't one.

:facepalm:

DeezNutz
03-21-2010, 08:57 PM
You don't take a shot for the sake of taking it. If you were talking about a 5th year senior who had no mechanic problems, foot work was almost perfect already and had the reputation of a workaholic and he won in college, FINE. Clausen doesn't fit that. He's not a franchise QB just like Sanchez isn't one. Taking chances for the sake of it makes no sense.

By this definition, you don't draft Peyton Manning, among a whole host of other hugely successful QBs.

Mecca
03-21-2010, 09:46 PM
The argument that you don't take a guy who's not a perfect prospect, the argument of the people who would never draft a QB.

Frankie
03-21-2010, 10:21 PM
Methinks Holmgren is blowing smoke. Pre-Draft poker.

ChiefsCountry
03-21-2010, 11:39 PM
:facepalm:

Yeah Retardian is a dumbass.

BryanBusby
03-22-2010, 02:34 AM
Methinks Holmgren is blowing smoke. Pre-Draft poker.

ding ding ding we have a winner

Chocolate Hog
03-22-2010, 02:36 AM
ding ding ding we have a winner

I said it first whats my prize?

BigMeatballDave
03-22-2010, 04:35 AM
You don't take a shot for the sake of taking it. If you were talking about a 5th year senior who had no mechanic problems, foot work was almost perfect already and had the reputation of a workaholic and he won in college, FINE. Clausen doesn't fit that. He's not a franchise. QB just like Sanchez isn't one. Taking chances for the sake of it makes no sense.
Thank you, capt. Obvious. I'm not the GM here. Doesn't matter what I think.I fucking know you don't take a player just for shits and giggles. I was just saying that I am not crazy about him.
Posted via Mobile Device

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 06:02 AM
By this definition, you don't draft Peyton Manning, among a whole host of other hugely successful QBs.

Actually you do take Manning because that was who I was basing that on dumbass.

Thank you, capt. Obvious. I'm not the GM here. Doesn't matter what I think.I ****ing know you don't take a player just for shits and giggles. I was just saying that I am not crazy about him.

You said in your first post something to the effect of "you gotta take a shot some time". Uh no, you don't.

BigMeatballDave
03-22-2010, 06:41 AM
You said in your first post something to the effect of "you gotta take a shot some time". Uh no, you don't.I see why people here call you retardian
Posted via Mobile Device

suds79
03-22-2010, 06:53 AM
Methinks Holmgren is blowing smoke. Pre-Draft poker.

Yep. Don't trust a single thing you're hearing from organizations right now when addressing prospects.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 07:05 AM
Actually you do take Manning because that was who I was basing that on dumbass.


Wasn't a fifth-year senior and the "winner" label was one of his knocks coming out of college, so that's not accurate.

UKMike
03-22-2010, 07:28 AM
The argument that you don't take a guy who's not a perfect prospect, the argument of the people who would never draft a QB.

I don't think anyone is saying you don't take anything less than a perfect prospect, if you have nothing at QB you take what's there.

I don't think any one is that happy with Cassel, but if there's players at other positions which are much better prospects available at our pick than Clausen (Berry, Suh) then I'm not against giving him another year. If he sucks then it obviously becomes our top priority next year.

Coogs
03-22-2010, 07:35 AM
You don't take a shot for the sake of taking it. If you were talking about a 5th year senior who had no mechanic problems, foot work was almost perfect already and had the reputation of a workaholic and he won in college, FINE. Clausen doesn't fit that. He's not a franchise QB just like Sanchez isn't one. Taking chances for the sake of it makes no sense.

Don't those guys go #1 overall? Picking 5th, you would have no shot at a guy like that.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 10:10 AM
Wasn't a fifth-year senior and the "winner" label was one of his knocks coming out of college, so that's not accurate.

Manning completed school early and basically played football his last year. That's as good as a fifth year senior to me. Second, the knock on him was that he couldn't beat Florida. It wasn't his fault that the defense gave up one billion points in the second half of a game where he gift wrapped Tennessee a win. But outside of that, yeah it stands. Manning already had pretty much perfect mechanics, the pedigree, the work ethic, etc. All that you look for in a "franchise" QB. He's a guy you pull the trigger on, not fucking Clausen.

Sweet Daddy Hate
03-22-2010, 04:00 PM
Yeah Retardian is a dumbass.

Sometimes it causes actual, physical pain to read his bullshit.

I know people here are used to scrubs who throw serviceable screens and other various short passes, but ask Braylon fucking Edwards who it was that couldn't catch a perfectly threaded sideliner for a touchdown.

DOHT!

Moving on...

chiefzilla1501
03-22-2010, 04:08 PM
This is basically the same as me walking up to Bar Rafaeli and telling her: "I wasn't staring at your boobs."

Ralphy Boy
03-22-2010, 05:36 PM
By this definition, you don't draft Peyton Manning, among a whole host of other hugely successful QBs.

I assume that, by talking about Peyton, you are talking specifically about his "5th year senior" comment. Everything else he described nailed Manning to a tee.

BryanBusby
03-22-2010, 05:37 PM
I said it first whats my prize?

The excitement of watching Scott Pioli draft Bryan Bulaga at 5 exactly 1 month from now!!!

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 05:45 PM
I assume that, by talking about Peyton, you are talking specifically about his "5th year senior" comment. Everything else he described nailed Manning to a tee.

Not exactly. His list was about 3/5 accurate or so. Missed on 5th-year senior and the "winner" trait.

His inability to "win the big one" was why it was considered, by many, to be a coin flip between Manning and Leaf.

There's no such thing as a perfect prospect, no matter how badly one may want him to appear.

Looking back on Manning as "the" guy is revisionist history.

Since I've been on this board, there hasn't been a single top-QB prospect come out that wasn't largely bashed by the majority of posters here.

Mecca
03-22-2010, 05:51 PM
This fan base completely fears QB's, I have no idea why but it does.

Sweet Daddy Hate
03-22-2010, 05:53 PM
The excitement of watching Scott Pioli draft Bryan Bulaga at 5 exactly 1 month from now!!!

I'd rather have the Turtle Wax and Home Edition FTW please...:facepalm:

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 05:53 PM
This fan base completely fears QB's, I have no idea why but it does.

Because 27 years have conditioned us.

We still read posts about missing on a QB and "crippling a franchise."

keg in kc
03-22-2010, 05:54 PM
Since I've been on this board, there hasn't been a single top-QB prospect come out that wasn't largely bashed by the majority of posters here.2006 to the present hasn't exactly been rife with great top-of-the-draft QB prospects. What's that give us...

Young, Leinert and Cutler your first year? (barf)
Russel and Quinn your second? (err, blech)
Ryan in 2008? (okay, him I liked. a lot)
Stafford and Sanchez last year?

College football hasn't been producing a whole lot lately, unfortunately.

Not that your point isn't valid. This town has been conditioned to take vets over young players (and not just at QB). Plus it has the one of the worst cases of backup-itis anywhere, after the Grbac/Gannon years. I have to chuckle every time I see people talk longingly about Croyle playing. It's like they don't remember what it was like when he did manage to go a series without getting hurt. Anyway, tangent.

Sweet Daddy Hate
03-22-2010, 05:56 PM
2006 to the present hasn't exactly been rife with great top-of-the-draft QB prospects. What's that give us...

Young, Leinert and Cutler your first year? (barf)
Russel and Quinn your second? (err, blech)
Ryan in 2008? (okay, him I liked. a lot)
Stafford and Sanchez last year?

College football hasn't been producing a whole lot lately, unfortunately.

Not that your point isn't valid. This town has been conditioned to take vets over young players (and not just at QB). Plus it has the one of the worst cases of backup-itis anywhere, after the Grbac/Gannon years. I have to chuckle every time I see people talk longingly about Croyle playing. It's like they don't remember what it was like when he did manage to go a series without getting hurt. Anyway, tangent.

Yes OUR RESULTS have been SO much better than drafting!(blech!) :p

keg in kc
03-22-2010, 05:58 PM
Yes OUR RESULTS have been SO much better than drafting!(blech!)What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 05:59 PM
2006 to the present hasn't exactly been rife with great top-of-the-draft QB prospects. What's that give us...

Young, Leinert and Cutler your first year? (barf)
Russel and Quinn your second? (err, blech)
Ryan in 2008? (okay, him I liked. a lot)
Stafford and Sanchez last year?

College football hasn't been producing a whole lot lately, unfortunately.

Not that your point isn't valid. This town has been conditioned to take vets over young players (and not just at QB). Plus it has the one of the worst cases of backup-itis anywhere, after the Grbac/Gannon years. I have to chuckle every time I see people talk longingly about Croyle playing. It's like they don't remember what it was like when he did manage to go a series without getting hurt. Anyway, tangent.

I think it's been pretty damn solid, actually.

Although I openly admit to liking Cutler more than some, you're also leaving Flacco off that list. And though I hated him, Freeman.

We've been in position to either draft several top prospects, Sanchez and Flacco, or be within striking distance for another, Ryan.

And let's not forget how much people LOVED Stafford when it looked like we might have a shot at him.

Sweet Daddy Hate
03-22-2010, 06:00 PM
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

What does NOT sucking at the position have to do with winning?

keg in kc
03-22-2010, 06:09 PM
I think it's been pretty damn solid, actually.

Although I openly admit to liking Cutler more than some, you're also leaving Flacco off that list. And though I hated him, Freeman.

We've been in position to either draft several top prospects, Sanchez and Flacco, or be within striking distance for another, Ryan.

And let's not forget how much people LOVED Stafford when it looked like we might have a shot at him.I said top of the first round. Franchise QB territory. Guys like Flacco and Freeman don't fall into that group, they're the next tier. And for me, neither does Sanchez, although he was drafted in the top 5 last year so I included him on the list. I would even go on to say that the fact that a one-year wonder on a loaded team like Sanchez was drafted so high is a sign of just how dire things are becoming for the position in the draft...

Hell, a guy who missed virtually the entire season, a spread QB to boot, may go number 1 this year.

I suppose I need to point out for raised on ritalin that I'm talking about the NFL in general. There aren't very many pedigreeed QBs coming out these days, and it doesn't look like it's going to be getting any better. I find that to be troubling. I think it's something that's going to be interesting to watch over the next decade, how the league as a whole deals with it.

That's part of the reason I'm so mystified by the league-wide Clausen talk. I don't like him, but only because he's a Notre Lame player, and I hate all those ****ers. The reality is that he's a pro style QB with great and consistent production, so I'm reading most of this talk about wariness by NFL people as smokescreen. If he doesn't go towards the top of the draft, I'll be mystified.

I wish we had Ryan, to be honest. A QB entering his third year would be just about perfect for where we are as a franchise, I think, and I still think he's the best prospect of the last 5 or 6 years. Would that he'd fallen just a little bit more.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 06:11 PM
Little bit of a misleading distinction, though, since Cutler was, what?, #11 overall, and Flacco was #17, I believe. Freeman in the same neighborhood, so we're talking about comparable players.

You don't like any of the possible QBs next year, keg? That class has the potential to be ****ing sick.

We're on the same page with Bradford, though. I wouldn't touch him.

keg in kc
03-22-2010, 06:14 PM
Little bit of a misleading distinction, though, since Cutler was, what?, #11 overall, and Flacco was #17, I believe. Freeman in the same neighborhood, so we're talking about comparable players. My memory is a little rusty, but as I recall, neither Freeman or Flacco were expected to go as high as they did, and weren't considered in the top-tier of QBs the year they came out. They weren't talked about as top of the first round picks. I can't even remember what the talk was with Cutler, I've slept too much since then. If the discussion is about franchise QBs, and in the realm of "manning or leaf" then guys picked in the teens don't belong. (Remember I'm talking about how they're looked at prior to the draft, not after it - guys taken later are developing into franchise players, but they wouldn't be there in the teens if that's what teams believed they were on draft day...)
You don't like any of the possible QBs next year, keg? That class has the potential to be ****ing sick. I couldn't tell you right now. Too much can change over the course of a season. Just ask the last two can't miss starting QBs from Louisville...

It would be nice if it was a cycle that was coming to an end, but I'm a seeing is believing kind of guy.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 06:19 PM
Not exactly. His list was about 3/5 accurate or so. Missed on 5th-year senior and the "winner" trait.

His inability to "win the big one" was why it was considered, by many, to be a coin flip between Manning and Leaf.

There's no such thing as a perfect prospect, no matter how badly one may want him to appear.

Looking back on Manning as "the" guy is revisionist history.

Since I've been on this board, there hasn't been a single top-QB prospect come out that wasn't largely bashed by the majority of posters here.

Actually it was "exactly". The only part you can hang your hat on about being a "winner" I addressed. It was that he couldn't beat florida. And I already addressed that. pull your head out.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 06:21 PM
Actually it was "exactly". The only part you can hang your hat on about being a "winner" I addressed. It was that he couldn't beat florida. And I already addressed that. pull your head out.

No, it wasn't "exactly."

He was not a fifth-year senior. That's a fact. If you want to claim "close enough," whatever.

And the can't-win-the-big-one line was absolutely used against Manning. Why do you think there was a debate about him and Leaf? Both were thought to be can't-miss prospects.

And, yes, I know you've made the point about Florida.

BossChief
03-22-2010, 06:23 PM
Second, the knock on him was that he couldn't beat Florida. It wasn't his fault that the defense gave up one billion points in the second half of a game where he gift wrapped Tennessee a win. Manning already had pretty much perfect mechanics, the pedigree, the work ethic, etc. All that you look for in a "franchise" QB. He's a guy you pull the trigger on, not fucking Clausen.

this is pretty funny.

Clausen had 6 losses and in those games his offense scored

34
27
21
22
30
38

yeah, it was obviously Jimmys fault they lost those games.

Sweet Daddy Hate
03-22-2010, 06:26 PM
this is pretty funny.

Clausen had 6 losses and in those games his offense scored

34
27
21
22
30
38

yeah, it was obviously Jimmys fault they lost those games.

It's Tardian. Talk to lamp fixture = get equal results.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 06:34 PM
No, it wasn't "exactly."

He was not a fifth-year senior. That's a fact. If you want to claim "close enough," whatever.

And the can't-win-the-big-one line was absolutely used against Manning. Why do you think there was a debate about him and Leaf? Both were thought to be can't-miss prospects.

And, yes, I know you've made the point about Florida.

I never understood the Manning/Leaf debate even at the time. Manning was a big pedigree guy with tons of wins and records. Leaf was a guy with a lot of unknowns. Just like Clausen.

If you want to hang your hat on the 5th year senior comment that's fine because it's all you got. I based it on a Manning "type" prospect. Clausen is NOT that type of prospect. End of discussion.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 06:37 PM
I never understood the Manning/Leaf debate even at the time. Manning was a big pedigree guy with tons of wins and records. Leaf was a guy with a lot of unknowns. Just like Clausen.

If you want to hang your hat on the 5th year senior comment that's fine because it's all you got. I based it on a Manning "type" prospect. Clausen is NOT that type of prospect. End of discussion.

Fine, let's move beyond the gold standard.

What about the likes of Stafford, Ryan, E. Manning, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc.?

These guys also don't fit the mold. If we don't identify and draft our own FQOTF, we will not win shit.

And if we're waiting for P. Manning II, we're going to be waiting for a long, long time.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 06:39 PM
Fine, let's move beyond the gold standard.

What about the likes of Stafford, Ryan, E. Manning, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc.?

These guys also don't fit the mold. If we don't identify and draft our own FQOTF, we will not win shit.

And if we're waiting for P. Manning II, we're going to be waiting for a long, long time.

I'm fine with drafting one, but not for the sake of it. That's a fucking waste. If he's a prospect worth taking fine. Clausen isn't.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 06:42 PM
What's the last prospect you thought was worth drafting?

What about next year's (potential) big three, should they declare? Mallett, Locker, and Gabbert...

BossChief
03-22-2010, 06:44 PM
Clausens junior year beat the hell out of Mannings junior year and has three years development in the exact system we run under the same OC.

Why dont you talk about what specifically makes him not worth taking a shot on instead of bringing weak sauce to the conversation.

BossChief
03-22-2010, 06:46 PM
What's the last prospect you thought was worth drafting?

What about next year's (potential) big three, should they declare? Mallett, Locker, and Gabbert...

Ill probably get flamed for this but I think Locker is the next Steve Young.

Not quite as high on the other two.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 06:48 PM
Clausens junior year beat the hell out of Mannings junior year and has three years development in the exact system we run under the same OC.

Why dont you talk about what specifically makes him not worth taking a shot on instead of bringing weak sauce to the conversation.

Nothing I could say would change the mind of a guy that posts with a gay looking picture of the guy we're arguing about, in his profile.

Now THAT son, is gay fucking weak sauce.

Ralphy Boy
03-22-2010, 06:51 PM
He's not a franchise QB just like Sanchez isn't one.

:facepalm:

Yeah Retardian is a dumbass.

I think its a bit premature to suggest that Sanchez is a franchise QB after one season.

Sanchez's rookie season was very comparable to Flacco and Roethlisberger, in terms of the type of team he was on, yet they both outshined him by a mile and so did Matt Ryan.

Sanchez's rookie season was statistically very comparable with David Carr only Carr was on a sucky team. Both of them even had a game where they had a 8.3 QB rating. That's not a typo, an eight point three QB rating.

Carr Sanchez
2592 2444 Passing Yards
52.5 53.8 Completion %
9 12 TD's
15 20 INT's
62.8 63.0 QB Rating

I would hope he'd end up being a hell of a lot better than Carr and I'm not damning the kid, but those of you that are ready to crown him because he had a couple of good games in the playoffs need to come back to earth just a little bit.

ChiefsCountry
03-22-2010, 06:55 PM
I think its a bit premature to suggest that Sanchez is a franchise QB after one season.

Sanchez's rookie season was very comparable to Flacco and Roethlisberger, in terms of the type of team he was on, yet they both outshined him by a mile and so did Matt Ryan.

Sanchez's rookie season was statistically very comparable with David Carr only Carr was on a sucky team. Both of them even had a game where they had a 8.3 QB rating. That's not a typo, an eight point three QB rating.

Carr Sanchez
2592 2444 Passing Yards
52.5 53.8 Completion %
9 12 TD's
15 20 INT's
62.8 63.0 QB Rating

I would hope he'd end up being a hell of a lot better than Carr and I'm not damning the kid, but those of you that are ready to crown him because he had a couple of good games in the playoffs need to come back to earth just a little bit.

Aikman had the shittiest stats in the world, but he won when it counted and had his teammates respect. Sanchez is going to be the same type QB. Sanchez played his ball in the playoffs, the brighest stage and the noob didn't shit himself.

BossChief
03-22-2010, 06:56 PM
Nothing I could say would change the mind of a guy that posts with a gay looking picture of the guy we're arguing about, in his profile.

Now THAT son, is gay fucking weak sauce.

I said this to you before and Ill say it again, people that consistently make gay jokes are found to be closet homosexuals.

nttawwt

...

So, what you are saying is that you have absolutely NOTHING to say to respond to my observation huh....not surprised.

...and FTR I have had four players in my sig this offseason as guys I would prefer us to draft

Suh
Berry
Clausen
McClain

When new info came out about McClain that contradicted previous info, I changed my view of the player. I don't get married to anyone, but I feel very strongly that Clausen is VERY coach-able (as shown in how drastically he improved year to year at ND) and would grow into a great professional quarterback under Weis that has a chance to win championships.

He isnt perfect, but NO PROSPECT IS. If we are gonna pick quarterbacks apart every year, we will continue to be a average-slightly above average team at best under the current plan for the position IMHO.

Sweet Daddy Hate
03-22-2010, 06:59 PM
Ill probably get flamed for this but I think Locker is the next Steve Young.

Not quite as high on the other two.

"No no no no; he doesn't shine his shoes every second Tuesday of the month"!

-Chiefs Nation

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 07:00 PM
Ill probably get flamed for this but I think Locker is the next Steve Young.

Not quite as high on the other two.

That's fine. I'm more skeptical.

But, when/if we shit the bed again this draft, I'm going to be driving the Gabbert bandwagon.

He's Roethlisberger II, without his dick constantly hanging out (it seems).

Chocolate Hog
03-22-2010, 07:05 PM
Jake Locker was pretty inaccurate at times.

Mecca
03-22-2010, 07:13 PM
I see Matt Ryan getting used, that year, I was told numerous times we shouldn't be picking Ryan because he's not good, he's being elevated in a bad class, Brodie Croyle is just as talented etc etc.

It doesn't matter who the QB is, it's nice to say you wanted him in hindsight but at the time, the majority of our fan base will make up excuses as to why we can't draft them.

Chocolate Hog
03-22-2010, 07:17 PM
I see Matt Ryan getting used, that year, I was told numerous times we shouldn't be picking Ryan because he's not good, he's being elevated in a bad class, Brodie Croyle is just as talented etc etc.

It doesn't matter who the QB is, it's nice to say you wanted him in hindsight but at the time, the majority of our fan base will make up excuses as to why we can't draft them.

IMO Ryan is a better prospect than Locker.


Looking back at the 2008 draft class the top talent was really hit or miss.

Mecca
03-22-2010, 07:19 PM
I don't really like Jake Locker to be honest with you...but the fact remains with this fan base it doesn't matter who the QB is, they'll say they liked him 3 years after the fact but at the time of the draft they want nothing to do with QB's.

ChiefsCountry
03-22-2010, 07:20 PM
I see Matt Ryan getting used, that year, I was told numerous times we shouldn't be picking Ryan because he's not good, he's being elevated in a bad class, Brodie Croyle is just as talented etc etc.


You can put me, OTW, and Hamas on that train. We all have eaten crow about him as well.

BigMeatballDave
03-22-2010, 07:55 PM
This. I don't get it either. Like I said, I'm not crazy about Clausen but if the Chiefs are I hope they take him. 27 yrs w/o drafting a qb inthe 1st is fucking pathetic.This fan base completely fears QB's, I have no idea why but it does.
Posted via Mobile Device

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 08:12 PM
I said this to you before and Ill say it again, people that consistently make gay jokes are found to be closet homosexuals.

nttawwt

...

This is generally the retort of stuffy ass people who are PC to talk to normally.


So, what you are saying is that you have absolutely NOTHING to say to respond to my observation huh....not surprised.

...and FTR I have had four players in my sig this offseason as guys I would prefer us to draft

Suh
Berry
Clausen
McClain

When new info came out about McClain that contradicted previous info, I changed my view of the player. I don't get married to anyone, but I feel very strongly that Clausen is VERY coach-able (as shown in how drastically he improved year to year at ND) and would grow into a great professional quarterback under Weis that has a chance to win championships.

He isnt perfect, but NO PROSPECT IS. If we are gonna pick quarterbacks apart every year, we will continue to be a average-slightly above average team at best under the current plan for the position IMHO.

No what I'm saying is, you have a gay looking pic of a guy in your profile and you want me to tell you what's wrong with him, when all you will do is make excuses, so it's a waste of time for me. Because you've already got your mind made up.

And BTW we're not picking him no matter how many gay pics you put in your profile of him.

Mecca
03-22-2010, 08:13 PM
I wouldn't be to proud of going "hey were not picking him" after last year...we'll get some scrub instead.

milkman
03-22-2010, 08:29 PM
You can put me, OTW, and Hamas on that train. We all have eaten crow about him as well.

You forgot me, you bastard.

I didn't like Ryan either.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 08:43 PM
I wouldn't be to proud of going "hey were not picking him" after last year...we'll get some scrub instead.

If we'd have drafted Sanchez last year we'd be in even worse shape this year. Sanchez just happened to land in the right situation but he's no franchise QB by any stretch of the imagination. And behind the line we had he'd have been in the ER by week 4.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 08:45 PM
Sanchez isn't any less tough or mobile than Cassel, and the former doesn't hold the ball as long.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 08:49 PM
Sanchez isn't any less tough or mobile than Cassel, and the former doesn't hold the ball as long.

And has even less field awareness and pocket presence. Sachez handed the ball off and let the Jets play defense.

milkman
03-22-2010, 08:51 PM
And has even less field awareness and pocket presence. Sachez handed the ball off and let the Jets play defense.

When I hear Ron Jaworski and Brian Billick talk about Sanchez showing outstanding pocket presence as the season progressed, I think they must be ****ing morons, cause the Gaurdian, the great juco player, says he has none.

Mecca
03-22-2010, 08:52 PM
And here we are yet again, Tyson Jackson sucks I don't care if you don't like Sanchez.

What we have to show from last year Jackson, Cassel and Vrabel is a bag of ass period.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 08:54 PM
I'm not arguing that Sanchez didn't do a lot of "managing," but it's disingenuous to claim that he didn't develop as a QB as the season progressed.

As for awareness and presence, he's already ahead of Cassel.

Mecca
03-22-2010, 08:56 PM
Arguing our 28 year old QB vs the 22 year old guy is disingenuous at best on top of that.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 08:56 PM
No he's not actually. Everytime I watched him that was sorely lacking from his skills.

and he barely did anything. you can't really say he developed because the guy game managed the entire year.

chiefzilla1501
03-22-2010, 08:56 PM
Sanchez isn't any less tough or mobile than Cassel, and the former doesn't hold the ball as long.

He still holds onto the ball pretty damn long. I'm still not a fan. Played much better than Cassel last season and made some big throws in big situations. Just not sold on the guy. I think once you take the conservative Marty ball approach away, he's just a guy.

TheGuardian
03-22-2010, 08:57 PM
Arguing our 28 year old QB vs the 22 year old guy is disingenuous at best on top of that.

I don't really care that one is 22 and one is 28. I really don't. Just like Viking fans didn't care that Favre was 972 last year when he was having a career season. I just care about great play from the QB position. Cassel didn't provide it and neither would have Sanchez. So the argument is moot.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 08:58 PM
He still holds onto the ball pretty damn long. I'm still not a fan. Played much better than Cassel last season and made some big throws in big situations. Just not sold on the guy. I think once you take the conservative Marty ball approach away, he's just a guy.

That's fine, and we'll see. But I appreciate the honesty.

Mecca
03-22-2010, 08:59 PM
You should care because Cassel sucks and developing a guy who's nearly 30 is pretty fuckin stupid, the Favre thing would hold weight if you know Cassel was actually good.

This whole argument has become completely stupid it went from oh Cassel is the guy it's the right move to "oh Sanchez isn't any better who cares about their ages"

The team fucked up.

chiefzilla1501
03-22-2010, 09:03 PM
You should care because Cassel sucks and developing a guy who's nearly 30 is pretty ****in stupid, the Favre thing would hold weight if you know Cassel was actually good.

This whole argument has become completely stupid it went from oh Cassel is the guy it's the right move to "oh Sanchez isn't any better who cares about their ages"

The team ****ed up.

If Cassel ends up sucking and the team has the balls to cut him, and Sanchez is anything less than a franchise QB, it's not nearly as big of a fuck-up as it is might seem right now.

I realize that this is a big IF. IF they cut him. IF Sanchez is short of a franchise QB. And a huge, huge IF they draft Clausen and he ends up better, than everything will definitely be just fine.

Until Sanchez proves who he is, we don't know if we fucked up by passing on Sanchez (but yes, as of now, it looks like trading for Cassel was a fuck up).

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Ends up?

Continues?

Mecca
03-22-2010, 09:06 PM
So the 2nd round pick or the result of picking Tyson Jackson doesn't matter...obviously blowing high picks is perfectly ok.

milkman
03-22-2010, 09:07 PM
Tradin for Cassel was fucked up, regardless of Sanchez.

DeezNutz
03-22-2010, 09:10 PM
Luckily, though, the Cassel trade will likely have no impact whatsoever on our decision making in the 2010 draft, since what's in the past is entirely in the past.

BossChief
03-22-2010, 09:31 PM
This is generally the retort of stuffy ass people who are PC to talk to normally.



No what I'm saying is, you have a gay looking pic of a guy in your profile and you want me to tell you what's wrong with him, when all you will do is make excuses, so it's a waste of time for me. Because you've already got your mind made up.

And BTW we're not picking him no matter how many gay pics you put in your profile of him.

So, you didn't read or just flat out failed to comprehend my entire post you quoted and STILL HAVE NOT OFFERED A SINGLE OPPOSING VIEW AT TO WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE A TOP 5 PICK.

Here, I'll get you started.

He didn't respond well to adversity on a consistent basis and seemed to have an "I'm better than you" attitude that rubbed people the wrong way.

There are serious concerns for how he will be once he gets a bunch of crazy money and if he will develop into a great leader of men when that is arguably the most important aspect of his position.

If you talk out of your ass I will objectively respond.

You have a serious problem when people disagree with you in normal conversation, don't you?

DaneMcCloud
03-22-2010, 10:38 PM
This is generally the retort of stuffy ass people who are PC to talk to normally.

I've tried to be nice to you before but it appears I've made a mistake.

You're an asshole.



No what I'm saying is, you have a gay looking pic of a guy in your profile and you want me to tell you what's wrong with him, when all you will do is make excuses, so it's a waste of time for me. Because you've already got your mind made up.

And BTW we're not picking him no matter how many gay pics you put in your profile of him.

Your football acumen is on par with your avatar acumen.

BigMeatballDave
03-23-2010, 01:08 AM
You know, you may be right. He may never develop into a franchise qb. You may also be retarded. I'm going with the latter...If we'd have drafted Sanchez last year we'd be in even worse shape this year. Sanchez just happened to land in the right situation but he's no franchise QB by any stretch of the imagination. And behind the line we had he'd have been in the ER by week 4.
Posted via Mobile Device

Claynus
03-23-2010, 01:10 AM
Luckily, though, the Cassel trade will likely have no impact whatsoever on our decision making in the 2010 draft, since what's in the past is entirely in the past.

There's no place like home...there's no place like home...

BigMeatballDave
03-23-2010, 01:15 AM
You dumbshit. You're missing the fucking point entirely. There is 6 fucking yrs difference. That's huge. I don't really care that one is 22 and one is 28. I really don't. Just like Viking fans didn't care that Favre was 972 last year when he was having a career season. I just care about great play from the QB position. Cassel didn't provide it and neither would have Sanchez. So the argument is moot.
Posted via Mobile Device

TheGuardian
03-23-2010, 06:05 AM
I've tried to be nice to you before but it appears I've made a mistake.

You're an asshole.



And you're gay Dane. So shut the fuck up.


Your football acumen is on par with your avatar acumen.

Except that I've forgotten more about this shit than your dumbass will ever know. Now flail about and tell me something snippy.

the Talking Can
03-23-2010, 07:07 AM
I'm fine with drafting one, but not for the sake of it. That's a ****ing waste. If he's a prospect worth taking fine. [insert name of any QB] isn't.



same dumb shit we've heard from chiefs fans for 20 years.....

Chiefnj2
03-23-2010, 07:30 AM
If KC drafted Sanchez last year, everyone would be okay taking Okung or Bulaga with the #5 this year. The board would be full of - you have to protect the franchise QB, the Chiefs are killing him, he's going to be the next Carr or Harrington ...

OnTheWarpath58
03-23-2010, 07:36 AM
If KC drafted Sanchez last year, everyone would be okay taking Okung or Bulaga with the #5 this year. The board would be full of - you have to protect the franchise QB, the Chiefs are killing him, he's going to be the next Carr or Harrington ...

:spock:

Having Sanchez would change our opinions of Albert?

Wow, you're REALLY reaching here.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2010, 07:45 AM
:spock:

Having Sanchez would change our opinions of Albert?

Wow, you're REALLY reaching here.

If Sanchez was getting hit and injured? It certainly would.

OnTheWarpath58
03-23-2010, 07:47 AM
If Sanchez was getting hit and injured? It certainly would.

Wouldn't change my opinion of Albert.

And I don't think it would change the opinion of the people you're likely targeting with your claim.

Casual fan? Absolutely. But they are already begging for Okung or Bulaga as it is.

TheGuardian
03-23-2010, 07:51 AM
If Sanchez was getting hit and injured? It certainly would.

Sanchez got hurt last year behind a good line. We would be talking about how he became the first man killed on an NFL field behind ours last year.

BigMeatballDave
03-23-2010, 07:58 AM
Sanchez got hurt last year behind a good line. We would be talking about how he became the first man killed on an NFL field behind ours last year.

Please. What a fucking drama queen you are. Cassel only missed the opener. Why would sanchez be killed?
Posted via Mobile Device

TheGuardian
03-23-2010, 08:00 AM
Please. What a ****ing drama queen you are. Cassel only missed the opener. Why would sanchez be killed?
Posted via Mobile Device

Because his field awareness and pocket presence is shit. Second, Cassel threw the ball a hell of a lot more than Sanchez did because we couldn't run the ball very well until LJ's flap and Charles became the starter. So if Sanchez had been asked to throw the ball a hell of a lot of times he would have gotten crushed because the guy has zero pocket presence.

Now shut the fuck up and go hump a goat.

Brock
03-23-2010, 08:02 AM
And Cassel has pocket presence?

BigMeatballDave
03-23-2010, 08:08 AM
Because his field awareness and pocket presence is shit. Second, Cassel threw the ball a hell of a lot more than Sanchez did because we couldn't run the ball very well until LJ's flap and Charles became the starter. So if Sanchez had been asked to throw the ball a hell of a lot of times he would have gotten crushed because the guy has zero pocket presence.

Now shut the fuck up and go hump a goat.you haven't got the slightest fucking idea what you are talking about. Carry on with your dumbassery...
Posted via Mobile Device

TheGuardian
03-23-2010, 08:18 AM
And Cassel has pocket presence?

No he doesn't. But Sanchez is even worse in that department.

you haven't got the slightest ****ing idea what you are talking about. Carry on with your dumbassery...

Yes because you surely bring a lot to the table. Enjoy your goat humping ass clown.

jspchief
03-23-2010, 08:27 AM
And Cassel has pocket presence?Why do people keep bringing Cassel up?

Someone comes out against Sanchez and the topic instantly gets morphed into a Cassel vs Sanchez debate. Having a negative opinion of a non-Chiefs player does not automatically suggest you are in support of the current Chiefs player a that position.

Maybe this particular time it's because Guardian has previously stated opinions on Cassel(?), but overall this is Mecca's defense to every claim against the players he has a hardon for.

Ralphy Boy
03-23-2010, 08:28 AM
So the 2nd round pick or the result of picking Tyson Jackson doesn't matter...obviously blowing high picks is perfectly ok.

You really shouldn't have brought up the abomination of our first round pick to settle an argument about the waste of our second rounder. If they are going to draft complete shit every year, like they did last year, I'd prefer they'd trade away all of their first rounders.

Comparatively speaking, wasting a first rounder on TJ was far worse than wasting a 2nd on Cassel & Vrabel.

I'm not arguing that Sanchez didn't do a lot of "managing," but it's disingenuous to claim that he didn't develop as a QB as the season progressed.

As for awareness and presence, he's already ahead of Cassel.

Don't know if you're referring to me, but I didn't say that he didn't progress. I didnt want him in the draft and I don't think he had a very good season for a rookie. He did well in the playoffs and made some plays when it counted so I give him all the credit in the world for that and if I were a Jet fan, I'd be excited about next season. Aside from that, he was on par with David Carr as a rookie so we shall see. There is reason for hope, for Jets fans, but I'm not ready to turn a DeLorean into a Time Machine just yet.

Arguing our 28 year old QB vs the 22 year old guy is disingenuous at best on top of that.

Well it certainly is a lopsided argument at best.

same dumb shit we've heard from chiefs fans for 20 years.....

Now that's just plain stupid on your part. You can bash the fact that we haven't drafted one all you want, but the guy has a point. He doesn't like Clausen, neither do I and a whole host of others. Sanchez came out early, his head coach said publicly that it was a bad idea because the kid only started for one season. Yes Pete was pissed because he lost his starting QB, but he didn't lie when he said "these early entry quarterbacks are less than 50-50 successful." (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/arash_markazi/01/16/carroll/).

Being a one year starter and early entrant, if Sanchez is successful, he'll be going against history. Those are odds I'd rather not take.

Brock
03-23-2010, 08:29 AM
Why do people keep bringing Cassel up?

Someone comes out against Sanchez and the topic instantly gets morphed into a Cassel vs Sanchez debate. Having a negative opinion of a non-Chiefs player does not automatically suggest you are in support of the current Chiefs player a that position.

Maybe this particular time it's because Guardian has previously stated opinions on Cassel(?), but overall this is Mecca's defense to every claim against the players he has a hardon for.

I don't know who brought Cassel up, nor who decided to throw Sanchez into the mix. I was responding to Guardian's post where he was making a direct comparison between the two.

jspchief
03-23-2010, 08:36 AM
I don't know who brought Cassel up, nor who decided to throw Sanchez into the mix.I'm just tired of seeing the same stupid responses.

Poster 1: I'm not a fan of WR X in this year's draft.
Mecca: I can't believe you're in love with Lance Long.

Poster 2: FA O-lineman Z never lived up to his first round selection
Mecca: You must want to continue to fail with Mike Goff.

No one can have any opinion on any f*cking player without it getting turned into Mecca's claims of blind homerism. It's just gotten old and it's killing actual discussion of players.

TheGuardian
03-23-2010, 09:33 AM
I don't know who brought Cassel up, nor who decided to throw Sanchez into the mix. I was responding to Guardian's post where he was making a direct comparison between the two.

Actually that comparison was made by someone else, I just had a follow up for it.

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 09:36 AM
I believe post #29 is the first Sanchez reference.

You don't take a shot for the sake of taking it. If you were talking about a 5th year senior who had no mechanic problems, foot work was almost perfect already and had the reputation of a workaholic and he won in college, FINE. Clausen doesn't fit that. He's not a franchise QB just like Sanchez isn't one. Taking chances for the sake of it makes no sense.

POND_OF_RED
03-23-2010, 09:50 AM
I don't know if it's been brought up yet but Pioli was on NFL Radio last night. They were talking to him about the draft and they asked him what positions he thought were really strong this year and he said all of them. Then they asked him about the QB's and he said he hadn't spent much time looking at the top prospects at that position. Just a little FYI in case anyone still thinks Clausen could be our first pick.

Brock
03-23-2010, 09:53 AM
I don't know if it's been brought up yet but Pioli was on NFL Radio last night. They were talking to him about the draft and they asked him what positions he thought were really strong this year and he said all of them. Then they asked him about the QB's and he said he hadn't spent much time looking at the top prospects at that position. Just a little FYI in case anyone still thinks Clausen could be our first pick.

Yeah, I'm sure he hasn't looked at any QBs.

TheGuardian
03-23-2010, 09:54 AM
I believe post #29 is the first Sanchez reference.

And where did I compare him to Cassel? I didn't. Someone else did first. Thank you very much.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2010, 10:15 AM
I don't know if it's been brought up yet but Pioli was on NFL Radio last night. They were talking to him about the draft and they asked him what positions he thought were really strong this year and he said all of them. Then they asked him about the QB's and he said he hadn't spent much time looking at the top prospects at that position. Just a little FYI in case anyone still thinks Clausen could be our first pick.

Weis is going to strap him down ala Clockwork Orange and force him to watch Clausen highlights.

FD
03-23-2010, 10:56 AM
I don't know if it's been brought up yet but Pioli was on NFL Radio last night. They were talking to him about the draft and they asked him what positions he thought were really strong this year and he said all of them. Then they asked him about the QB's and he said he hadn't spent much time looking at the top prospects at that position. Just a little FYI in case anyone still thinks Clausen could be our first pick.

He doesn't really need to look at Clausen. Weis knows the kid better than anyone else in football, theres no need to scout him.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2010, 11:02 AM
He doesn't really need to look at Clausen. Weis knows the kid better than anyone else in football, theres no need to scout him.

Irish coach Charlie Weis, who concedes he is biased, said if he were an NFL head coach he would want Quinn on his team, saying he has that special "it" leaders have.

"I think that everything about him points to him being a successful quarterback in the NFL. The way he carries himself on and off the field, his athletic ability, his moxie, his leadership. That 'it' that certain people have, well he has it," he said. "I'm a big Brady Quinn fan."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-448368/Is-Quinn-Montana.html#ixzz0j1JCMHeT

Brock
03-23-2010, 11:04 AM
I don't know what else you'd expect him to say.

Chiefnj2
03-23-2010, 11:14 AM
I don't know what else you'd expect him to say.

Do you think his view on QB's can be trusted?

Brock
03-23-2010, 11:16 AM
Do you think his view on QB's can be trusted?

Public or private?

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 11:16 AM
"Irish coach"

Talking up his player? Shocking.

jidar
03-23-2010, 11:21 AM
I assume that, by talking about Peyton, you are talking specifically about his "5th year senior" comment. Everything else he described nailed Manning to a tee.

uh.. no. For the record people criticised things about Manning, same as they do everyone. In particular his footwork.
There has never been a guy that you couldn't find something to complain about. Ever. Period.

Ralphy Boy
03-23-2010, 07:22 PM
What about next year's (potential) big three, should they declare? Mallett, Locker, and Gabbert...

All 3 have their issues with accuracy but all have a ton of potential.

Mallett might not even declare next year, he will be a junior, but if he has a big season, he'd be a fool to stay any longer. He has a huge arm but needs to improve on his completion %. I'd be very reluctant to draft a guy coming out of college with a completion % below 60%. Yes his yardage and TD/INT ratio was great and I realize he didn't have a household name catching the ball.

Gabbert is the same story, though not quite the numbers that Mallett has.

Locker is a freak athletically and at this point, he's the only one you mentioned that will for sure be in the draft. He's going to have a big target on his back this year and probably won't end up as the #1 prospect that he might have been this year. Having Sarkisian as his head coach has helped a ton. He was a big help to Carson Palmer, who saw his completion % go from 54.9% before Sarkisian to 58.6% his junior year when Sark was an assistant to 63.2% as a senior when he was the QB coach.

From a physical standpoint, the ceiling is higher on all 3 of them, IMO, than Clausen. People can bag on Locker/Bradford all they want but going back to school for their senior year tends to reflect well to NFL teams that they are more patient, mature and typically farther along in the developmental process. Basically more polished.

There's always a guy like Leinart that screws up and goes back when he shouldn't although in his case I think he went back because he knew he wasn't ready for the pro's and it ended up being that he still wasn't when he got there.

None of that says anything about the system they are in and how well it translates to the NFL and Clausen has an edge over all of them in that regard.

the Talking Can
03-23-2010, 07:27 PM
You really shouldn't have brought up the abomination of our first round pick to settle an argument about the waste of our second rounder. If they are going to draft complete shit every year, like they did last year, I'd prefer they'd trade away all of their first rounders.

Comparatively speaking, wasting a first rounder on TJ was far worse than wasting a 2nd on Cassel & Vrabel.



Don't know if you're referring to me, but I didn't say that he didn't progress. I didnt want him in the draft and I don't think he had a very good season for a rookie. He did well in the playoffs and made some plays when it counted so I give him all the credit in the world for that and if I were a Jet fan, I'd be excited about next season. Aside from that, he was on par with David Carr as a rookie so we shall see. There is reason for hope, for Jets fans, but I'm not ready to turn a DeLorean into a Time Machine just yet.



Well it certainly is a lopsided argument at best.



Now that's just plain stupid on your part. You can bash the fact that we haven't drafted one all you want, but the guy has a point. He doesn't like Clausen, neither do I and a whole host of others. Sanchez came out early, his head coach said publicly that it was a bad idea because the kid only started for one season. Yes Pete was pissed because he lost his starting QB, but he didn't lie when he said "these early entry quarterbacks are less than 50-50 successful." (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/arash_markazi/01/16/carroll/).

Being a one year starter and early entrant, if Sanchez is successful, he'll be going against history. Those are odds I'd rather not take.

no QB is ever good enough for chiefs fans...we've heard the same whining bullshit for 20 years....

every year....qb X "isn't peyton manning"

keg in kc
03-23-2010, 07:30 PM
no QB is ever good enough for chiefs fans...we've heard the same whining bullshit for 20 years....

every year....qb X "isn't peyton manning"Rich Gannon was good enough, by gawd!

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 07:31 PM
Gabbert was 3593 for 24/9 with a 58.9% completion percentage: 6'5" 240lbs.

Mallett was 3627 for 30/7 with a 55.8% completion percentage: 6'7" 238lbs.

I'll take Gabbert, please, spread be damned. He's going to be the goods.

Mecca
03-23-2010, 07:32 PM
And Tyler Thigpen.

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 07:33 PM
This is a back-up town.

I'm surprised most people don't bitch and complain that "KC is no Omaha." We love second-stringers...

Mecca
03-23-2010, 07:34 PM
It's pretty sad how quickly the Chiefs turned into the Royals, even with the big named dumbass GM's to match.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 07:48 PM
I don't know the Royals have been a minor league baseball team for over 15 years now.

ChiefsCountry
03-23-2010, 07:55 PM
The Royals actually produce elite talent they just make stupid decisions regarding them.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 07:57 PM
The Royals haven't had a HOF player since Brett. Atleast the Chiefs have had a few recently.

Ralphy Boy
03-23-2010, 07:58 PM
uh.. no. For the record people criticised things about Manning, same as they do everyone. In particular his footwork.
There has never been a guy that you couldn't find something to complain about. Ever. Period.

Duh. Most everything I can recall or find on Peyton was that he had no bust potential. The same couldn't be said for Sanchez last year. If footwork is the biggest knock on a kid I'd have no problem taking a QB in the first.

Peyton's maturity and work ethic were well documented and why he was drafted over Leaf. At the end of the day, aside from natural ability, I think maturity and work ethic are probably the biggest keys in drafting a QB in the first. Peyton was perfectly capable from a pure athletic perspective, as was Leaf, but where they differed was;
Peyton = lower ceiling, more experience & more mature
**versus **
Leaf = higher ceiling, less experience & immature

CNNSI 1998 NFL Draft Profile (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/events/1998/nfldraft/topplayers/4.html)

Even Leaf said that he'd take Manning if he were drafting: (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/19/sports/sports-of-the-times-manning-or-leaf-and-who-cares.html?pagewanted=1)''I'd choose Peyton; he's the smart thing to do,'' Leaf said. ''I still have a lot of things to prove. He's more polished. He's been a quarterback since he was little. I didn't really learn how to be a quarterback until I was a freshman in college.''

Peyton showed up to his interview with the Colts with a notebook and a list of questions on how they planned to get to the Superbowl.

Leaf had attitude problems that were well documented before the draft, just like Clausen. Clausen isn't nearly as bad as Leaf, but the cocky arrogance is there just the same.

Give this (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980812&slug=2766129) a read if you want, but Leaf was falling apart before the season ever started because of his immaturity.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 08:01 PM
With a good draft this year I don't think the Chiefs are that far off from being a playoff team.

Mecca
03-23-2010, 08:01 PM
Dude Manning got railed for having weird footwork, for throwing a wobbly ball and not having a super strong arm.

ChiefsCountry
03-23-2010, 08:12 PM
The Royals haven't had a HOF player since Brett. Atleast the Chiefs have had a few recently.

In the last 15 years, the Chiefs have produced one - Gonzo. In the same time frame the Royals have had Damon, Beltran, Greinke, and Soria. All of those players are better than anything the Chiefs have developed.

ChiefsCountry
03-23-2010, 08:13 PM
This Clausen bullshit reminds me of the story about how the Chiefs picked Blackledge over Marino. The scouts wanted Marino, but Blackledge showed up in a suit and Marino in a t-shirt. It pissed off Mackovic and they went against their scouts.

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 08:14 PM
Will Shields.

ChiefsCountry
03-23-2010, 08:15 PM
Will Shields.

He was drafted 17 years ago, same as our last playoff win.

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 08:15 PM
Damn. That long ago already...

Mecca
03-23-2010, 08:19 PM
It's just time to prepare yourself for a shitty pick because they've continually pumped these stupid lines to justify anything they do.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 08:58 PM
In the last 15 years, the Chiefs have produced one - Gonzo. In the same time frame the Royals have had Damon, Beltran, Greinke, and Soria. All of those players are better than anything the Chiefs have developed.

Gonzalez will be in the HOF none of those players will. How many playoff appearances or divison titles have the Royals produced in te same amount of time?

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 09:01 PM
You never know with Greinke.

His talent level is limitless, and his body type/motion are perfect of longevity. With the right mindset, this could easily be a start of a decade of dominance for him. Then we're talking about a first-ballot HOFer.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 09:02 PM
You never know with Greinke.

His talent level is limitless, and his body type/motion are perfect of longevity. With the right mindset, this could easily be a start of a decade of dominance for him. Then we're talking about a first-ballot HOFer.

And he won't even be a Royal when his contract is up. The Chiefs are bad right now but the Royals set the standard for horrible not sure why some can't admit that.

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 09:04 PM
It's hard to talk about standards when the owner's explicitly stated primary motive wasn't to win.

The ****ing franchise, literally, wasn't trying to win for years. And, surprisingly, they sucked.

Greinke will stay under contract.

Tribal Warfare
03-23-2010, 09:23 PM
This Clausen bullshit reminds me of the story about how the Chiefs picked Blackledge over Marino. The scouts wanted Marino, but Blackledge showed up in a suit and Marino in a t-shirt. It pissed off Mackovic and they went against their scouts.

I thought the reason why Blackledge was picked besides presenting himself in a suit and tie was that Marino didn't show up for his interview in general.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 09:24 PM
It's hard to talk about standards when the owner's explicitly stated primary motive wasn't to win.

The ****ing franchise, literally, wasn't trying to win for years. And, surprisingly, they sucked.

Greinke will stay under contract.

You think so? Youre probably right if they let him walk I could see people tearing down the stadium.

DeezNutz
03-23-2010, 09:34 PM
You think so? Youre probably right if they let him walk I could see people tearing down the stadium.

Honestly, and I say this as a die-hard Royals fan, if the team will not re-sign the top talent it develops, the owner needs to sell or relocate the team.

I'd be fine with either option. If they become the Salt Lake City Royals, I wouldn't give a fuck. They'll always be my team.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 09:38 PM
Honestly, and I say this as a die-hard Royals fan, if the team will not re-sign the top talent it develops, the owner needs to sell or relocate the team.

I'd be fine with either option. If they become the Salt Lake City Royals, I wouldn't give a ****. They'll always be my team.

I've been all for them rellocating the team for awhile now. I was a big a Jermaine Dye fan I remember his last game here I was at the game he made this amazing catch aginst the wall. After the game he was traded for Neifi Perez. After that I was done with them.

DaneMcCloud
03-25-2010, 05:50 PM
And you're gay Dane. So shut the fuck up.

So let me get this straight: Your constant dumbassery, which has been on display for a year and counting, somehow makes me a homosexual?

The nickname "The Retardian" is far too kind.

Except that I've forgotten more about this shit than your dumbass will ever know. Now flail about and tell me something snippy.

If you knew something about "this shit", you've clearly forgotten all of it.

TheGuardian
03-25-2010, 05:55 PM
So let me get this straight: Your constant dumbassery, which has been on display for a year and counting, somehow makes me a homosexual?

The nickname "The Retardian" is far too kind.



If you knew something about "this shit", you've clearly forgotten all of it.

You've had all this time and that was the best comeback you could work up?

DaneMcCloud
03-25-2010, 05:59 PM
You've had all this time and that was the best comeback you could work up?

All this time? I hadn't even looked at this thread because it was heading somewhere else until I repped for my comments.

Do you think I sit around trying to create witty retorts to the dumbassery on display?

Clearly, you had been waiting for my response.

That's pretty sad.

TheGuardian
03-25-2010, 06:26 PM
All this time? I hadn't even looked at this thread because it was heading somewhere else until I repped for my comments.

Do you think I sit around trying to create witty retorts to the dumbassery on display?

Clearly, you had been waiting for my response.

That's pretty sad.

I actually don't care. I totally forgot about this thread.

DaneMcCloud
03-25-2010, 06:32 PM
I actually don't care. I totally forgot about this thread.

Sure you don't.


LMAO

Sweet Daddy Hate
03-25-2010, 08:24 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, your Chiefs Planet Tardian:

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv252/raisedonriots/GUADUANCARD.png

BossChief
03-25-2010, 08:33 PM
This is generally the retort of stuffy ass people who are PC to talk to normally.



No what I'm saying is, you have a gay looking pic of a guy in your profile and you want me to tell you what's wrong with him, when all you will do is make excuses, so it's a waste of time for me. Because you've already got your mind made up.

And BTW we're not picking him no matter how many gay pics you put in your profile of him.

So, you didn't read or just flat out failed to comprehend my entire post you quoted and STILL HAVE NOT OFFERED A SINGLE OPPOSING VIEW AT TO WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE A TOP 5 PICK.

Here, I'll get you started.

He didn't respond well to adversity on a consistent basis and seemed to have an "I'm better than you" attitude that rubbed people the wrong way.

There are serious concerns for how he will be once he gets a bunch of crazy money and if he will develop into a great leader of men when that is arguably the most important aspect of his position.

If you talk out of your ass I will objectively respond.

You have a serious problem when people disagree with you in normal conversation, don't you?

still waiting....