PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Ryan Tannehill


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8

Coogs
04-01-2012, 02:31 PM
Tannehill is the anti-Stanzi.

Does anyone have that article, or link, where Stanzi graded out the highest among prospects last year? The authors had been putting together a schedule of variables like starts, compl %, performance in big games, etc., and Stanzi's grade came in incredibly high - IIRC in tough games he was Mr. Clutch according to the article.

This one?

http://fantasyfootballmetrics.com/Player_News/Content/NFL-Draft_2011_Stanzi_2-23-2011.htm

chiefzilla1501
04-01-2012, 02:35 PM
zilla, I had the same thoughts about the guy a few weeks ago.


But the more I really watch the guy and read about him, I'm swaying a little.


I don't think he's a cant miss prospect by any means, but there is alot of potential there.

I don't see it. Physically, yes. But here's the thing. Given Tannehill's physical skill set, he has to have Brady or Brees like mental ability to be a franchise QB. His inexperience makes that very, very difficult. If you're RGIII, you can cut a few corners. Same with Big Ben, who takes a hell of a lot longer to read a defense, but he also has an uncanny ability to stay in the pocket for an eternity. Tannehill is going to have to be a guy who can diagnose a defense pre-snap, make a decision within a split second of the ball being snapped, and rifle through his progressions if necessary. I think he can develop that, but I find it hard to believe that he'll ever develop that unless he gets 2-3 years of true NFL starting experience, with a huge chance that it never quite develops. What I saw from him was not just inexperience, but his entire offense seemed to be designed off of 3-step drops or shotgun reads where the ball was out to his first read within a split second, and the majority of those were screens or quick outs or short 5-10 yard dump-offs.

Barkley and Tyler Wilson... these are guys who seem to do that a lot better than Tannehill, and they seem to have much more of a history of running a more traditionally vertical offense.

I just don't think Tannehill's upside is any more than just a serviceable middle-of-the-road starting QB.

O.city
04-01-2012, 02:42 PM
I don't see it. Physically, yes. But here's the thing. Given Tannehill's physical skill set, he has to have Brady or Brees like mental ability to be a franchise QB. His inexperience makes that very, very difficult. If you're RGIII, you can cut a few corners. Same with Big Ben, who takes a hell of a lot longer to read a defense, but he also has an uncanny ability to stay in the pocket for an eternity. Tannehill is going to have to be a guy who can diagnose a defense pre-snap, make a decision within a split second of the ball being snapped, and rifle through his progressions if necessary. I think he can develop that, but I find it hard to believe that he'll ever develop that unless he gets 2-3 years of true NFL starting experience, with a huge chance that it never quite develops. What I saw from him was not just inexperience, but his entire offense seemed to be designed off of 3-step drops or shotgun reads where the ball was out to his first read within a split second, and the majority of those were screens or quick outs or short 5-10 yard dump-offs.

Barkley and Tyler Wilson... these are guys who seem to do that a lot better than Tannehill, and they seem to have much more of a history of running a more traditionally vertical offense.

I just don't think Tannehill's upside is any more than just a serviceable middle-of-the-road starting QB.

It might not be, but I really don't know that Barkley or Wilson's skill set is that much higher.

Barkley doesn't have a big arm and Wilson has a windup.


Every qb is gonna have flaws coming out. I'm just saying that if the front office deems this guy to be the guy of the future, I'm fine with that. And if in a few years it isn't working move on.

whoman69
04-01-2012, 02:48 PM
If he is our pick, there is a core group of us that will have to try and keep the board in check because massive amounts of patience will likely be needed.

I don't think he should start day one, but if he does that core group will be working overtime.

He would probably throw 20 picks and more than half of them would be really ugly.

That would be expected IMO.

"**** Pioli for drafting this piece of trash"

"Cam Newton never made mistakes like these"

"no franchise quarterback makes that throw"

"I can't believe we traded up for this guy"

"can we have Cassel back?"

Comments like those would be commonplace around here if he is the opening day starter year 1.

I don't think we'll have to worry about that then. This guy is nowhere near NFL ready.

whoman69
04-01-2012, 02:51 PM
Only reason I would think about starting him day 1 is that he can basically do what Cassel already does. Lean on the run, make a throw here and there.


I would rather him do that and learn from his mistakes, allowing us to put more on him as the year goes by than to sit him behind Cassel.

He has a lot of things that need to happen before we can even think about putting him out on the field. You don't learn if you're overwhelmed.

Bewbies
04-01-2012, 02:56 PM
He has a lot of things that need to happen before we can even think about putting him out on the field. You don't learn if you're overwhelmed.

I agree with this. I'd submit Cassel as evidence.

BossChief
04-01-2012, 03:10 PM
Only reason I would think about starting him day 1 is that he can basically do what Cassel already does. Lean on the run, make a throw here and there.


I would rather him do that and learn from his mistakes, allowing us to put more on him as the year goes by than to sit him behind Cassel.

Good point

Chief Roundup
04-01-2012, 03:39 PM
That's Tannehill's value in this draft. In any other draft, he's a borderline first round pick.

I'm not a big fan at all of Tannehill. As I've said before, a QB that raw had better have elite... something. Elite mobility. Elite arm strength. Elite mental processing of the game. Tannehill is very good on 1 and 2, but he is MILES away from elite. He's not a big hulking guy like Big Ben that can carry 10 guys on his back and he's not a 4.4 guy like RGIII. His arm strength is better than Cassel's, but he doesn't have a Cutler arm. This is not the type of QB you take with a #11 pick. So right now, you have to hope that he not just becomes good at mentally reading defenses and thinking through the game, you have to hope he becomes elite. Brady-like. Keep in mind that if you commit to Tannehill, you throw away any chance to draft a QB in the next 3 years.

Me? I'd rather make an aggressive move in 2013 for the right QB than bank our entire future on the wrong one just because he's convenient.

I think you are undervaluing the QB postition and value in the draft with the new CBA. Rookie contracts are now "affordable" so the risk is low now compared to years past. The teams that are drafting at the top of the rounds are for the most part teams that need QB's.
There is a very good chance next year we will be drafting from 20 or worse. It would take way to much to move up far enough to get a prospect that is any better than Tannehill next season. Keep in mind there will probably be 2 of those QBs gone in the top 5 and then we will still be trying to draft the 3rd best from a much worse position.

Bewbies
04-01-2012, 03:56 PM
I think you are undervaluing the QB postition and value in the draft with the new CBA. Rookie contracts are now "affordable" so the risk is low now compared to years past. The teams that are drafting at the top of the rounds are for the most part teams that need QB's.
There is a very good chance next year we will be drafting from 20 or worse. It would take way to much to move up far enough to get a prospect that is any better than Tannehill next season. Keep in mind there will probably be 2 of those QBs gone in the top 5 and then we will still be trying to draft the 3rd best from a much worse position.

File this post under things most true fans fail to comprehend.

The only way you are going to land "the perfect QB prospect" is to get the #1 pick in a year that just happens to have one. The Colts this year hit the jackpot in that sense.

Stafford was the last really good #1 prospect, and he was far from perfect. On here you would have thought him to be total shit the way most people described him.

When you aren't going to get the #1 pick you aren't going to get your first choice at QB ever. No matter how good "next year's QB class is" if you aren't picking at #1 it doesn't matter. If you're not in the top 5, you are screwed. If you're going to be in the high teens/low 20's forgetaboutit.

Chiefnj2
04-01-2012, 04:14 PM
This one?

http://fantasyfootballmetrics.com/Player_News/Content/NFL-Draft_2011_Stanzi_2-23-2011.htm

Yep. Thanks. I guess they didn't evaluate the QBs this year (unless I'm missing it).

philfree
04-01-2012, 04:37 PM
IMO Tannehill fits The Ratts offense perfectly.

Chocolate Hog
04-01-2012, 06:19 PM
I hope Tannehill is there at 11 it'll tell us everything we need to know about Pioli.

Frankie
04-02-2012, 01:09 AM
That's Tannehill's value in this draft. In any other draft, he's a borderline first round pick.

I'm not a big fan at all of Tannehill. As I've said before, a QB that raw had better have elite... something. Elite mobility. Elite arm strength. Elite mental processing of the game. Tannehill is very good on 1 and 2, but he is MILES away from elite. He's not a big hulking guy like Big Ben that can carry 10 guys on his back and he's not a 4.4 guy like RGIII. His arm strength is better than Cassel's, but he doesn't have a Cutler arm. This is not the type of QB you take with a #11 pick. Some argue that the attributes that you have mentioned, Tannehill has for the most part. If not "elite" already then soon to be one. Me, I like his athletic-ness and the seeming pocket presence that I have seen from him, albeit in two games that I watched of him. That said, I like his fast improvement and feel he will keep doing that at the pro level. That's a statement about his mental equipment. If I'm right then I think he will be a fast riser to at least borderline elite.

Tannehill is the anti-Stanzi.

Does anyone have that article, or link, where Stanzi graded out the highest among prospects last year? The authors had been putting together a schedule of variables like starts, compl %, performance in big games, etc., and Stanzi's grade came in incredibly high - IIRC in tough games he was Mr. Clutch according to the article.This is why I hope stanzi will be given a fair chance even if we draft Tannehill.

htismaqe
04-02-2012, 07:23 AM
If he is our pick, there is a core group of us that will have to try and keep the board in check because massive amounts of patience will likely be needed.

I don't think he should start day one, but if he does that core group will be working overtime.

He would probably throw 20 picks and more than half of them would be really ugly.

That would be expected IMO.

"**** Pioli for drafting this piece of trash"

"Cam Newton never made mistakes like these"

"no franchise quarterback makes that throw"

"I can't believe we traded up for this guy"

"can we have Cassel back?"

Comments like those would be commonplace around here if he is the opening day starter year 1.

What's your response going to be when the comments are:

"This guy's been a starter for 2 years and we still don't attempt a pass beyond 20 yards."

"It's 2015 and he still can't get on the field?"

Mr_Tomahawk
04-02-2012, 08:26 AM
Eagles, Chiefs jump into the Tannehill tourney

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/eagles-chiefs-jump-into-the-tannehill-tourney/

With quarterbacks Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III already spoken for (barring an incredibly unlikely and unforeseen development), the top remaining quarterback on the board is Ryan Tannehill.

With the Browns (at No. 4) and the Dolphins (at No. 8) and the Seahawks (at No. 12) all apparently very interested in the converted whom Greg Cosell believes is more accurate on the run than Luck or Griffin, Peter King of SI.com points out in his brand-new MMQB column that the Eagles and Chiefs will each put Tannehill through a private workout.

Both already appeared on our visits and workouts tracker, but the dates hadn’t been set. Per King, the Eagles will check out Tannehill on Monday, and he’ll work out for the Chiefs later in the week.

So what does it mean? Based on history, it’s hard to say. This is the time for smokescreens and misdirections, with teams talking up players they don’t like (in the hopes someone higher on the order will take them) and saying bad things about players they hope will slip down the board.

But both the Chiefs (at No. 11) and the Eagles (at No. 15) were interested in Peyton Manning, Kansas City admittedly and Philly reportedly. And so each team has to at least be contemplating the possibility of making a move up to land a new quarterback.

The question is how high will they need to go? With the Browns believed to be interested at No. 4, the safest strategy would be to move to No. 3, which would duplicate the 1-2-3 quarterback class of 1999, when Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb, and Akili Smith came off the board in back-to-back-to-back fashion.

Of that class from thirteen years ago, only one of those three quarterbacks ever turned out to be anything. (Some would say none out of those three.) This year, the Colts, Redskins, and a team to be determined will be counting on a much higher success rate.

YayMike
04-02-2012, 08:37 AM
As much as I really really want a QB, and I really want Cassel gone, I really really don't want to trade UP to get Tannehill....

Coogs
04-02-2012, 08:41 AM
As much as I really really want a QB, and I really want Cassel gone, I really really don't want to trade UP to get Tannehill....

Without a trade up, most likely there will be no Tannehill to draft at 11...

More from Peter King...

The Dolphins love them some Ryan Tannehill. I spoke with Tannehill Saturday, mostly about his workout in front of pro scouts and coaches on the Texas A&M campus Thursday. But we also talked about how much work the Dolphins, picking eighth in the first round, are doing on the kid.

Club officials, including GM Jeff Ireland and coach Joe Philbin, dined with Tannehill in College Station Wednesday night, then spent about 90 minutes with him on the greaseboard Thursday after the workout. Any doubt now that Tannehill won't get past No. 8, where Miami picks?

Noted NFL Films analyst Greg Cosell says Tannehill is a more accurate passer on the run than Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III, which is something to say for a guy who played wide receiver for two-plus seasons while waiting for the quarterback job to be his in 2010.

Tannehill worked with quarterback consultant Chris Weinke on his mechanics after the 2011 season, ironing out the herky-jerky motion in his pass-drops and working on opening his hips better on deep sideline throws to the left. But the attention from teams always goes to his time at receiver, where he was moved -- by former A&M coach and current Miami offensive coordinator Mike Sherman -- as a freshman because two quarterbacks were ahead of him.

"I was an arrogant little freshman at the time,'' Tannehill told me. "I said to coach Sherman, 'I think you're making a mistake.' He sort of chuckled to himself. I forget what he said. But they just told me to go out the next day at practice and run some routes. Two days later, I was in the starting rotation at receiver. Obviously, I was frustrated, but now I realize it gave me a different look at offensive football -- what receivers go through, how they see defensive backs, where they like the ball delivered. Things like that. So it worked out all right.''

It's pretty clear Cleveland and Miami are the leading candidates for Tannehill. I think he'd be a better fit in Miami because, after 19 starts at quarterback in college football, he may need a year of seasoning and time to get used to a new system before feeling the weight of a franchise on his shoulders. And right now, Matt Moore has more security -- and faith from the fan base in Miami -- than Colt McCoy has in Cleveland. One bad month and the fans would be calling for Tannehill in Miami. But one bad half in Cleveland and the chants for Tannehill would begin.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/01/bounty/index.html#ixzz1qtFnpXbm

-King-
04-02-2012, 09:56 AM
I wouldn't trade up for him either.
Posted via Mobile Device

Direckshun
04-02-2012, 09:57 AM
http://www.mockingthedraft.com/2012/3/30/2912276/nfl-mock-draft-2012-college-pro-days-are-pretty-much-done#storyjump

LMAO

Mr_Tomahawk
04-02-2012, 09:58 AM
http://www.mockingthedraft.com/2012/3/30/2912276/nfl-mock-draft-2012-college-pro-days-are-pretty-much-done#storyjump

LMAO

Motherfuckyeah!

YayMike
04-02-2012, 10:02 AM
Without a trade up, most likely there will be no Tannehill to draft at 11...

More from Peter King...




Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/01/bounty/index.html#ixzz1qtFnpXbm

I guess I'm just not sold on him especially enough to give up a second rounder or more. I know it's the same thing every year but I just don't think he is a franchise qb. Eventually we have to take a chance but unless he falls to us at 11 I don't think he is worth trading up. If Romeo and staff disagree I won t bitch but I would hate giving up the picks in a bidding war.

-King-
04-02-2012, 10:03 AM
With this pick, the Chiefs surrender their first this year, their second this year (44th overall), and their first next year.

Fuck that shit.
Posted via Mobile Device

Chiefnj2
04-02-2012, 10:09 AM
The media loves building up QBs to have them slide down on draft day.

When Mayock, McShay, Kiper, et al., were projecting Clausen in the first, or even early first, Danielle Jeremiah was posting about how real team scouts didn't give him a first round grade. Lots of people on this board said "that's why he's no longer a scout ..."

I find it hard to believe Jeremiah had info that all those guys didn't have access to (or some of them), yet they all went on hyped up the kid. I presume they do it for ratings of some sort and it gives them something to talk about pre and post draft.

YayMike
04-02-2012, 10:23 AM
[QUOTE=-King-;8511133]**** that shit.
Posted via Mobile Device[/]

This

Coogs
04-02-2012, 10:23 AM
I guess I'm just not sold on him especially enough to give up a second rounder or more. I know it's the same thing every year but I just don't think he is a franchise qb. Eventually we have to take a chance but unless he falls to us at 11 I don't think he is worth trading up. If Romeo and staff disagree I won t bitch but I would hate giving up the picks in a bidding war.

I've not seen enough to Tannehill to have formed a legit opinion. That is Pioli and Crennel's job to do anyway.

During our 4-12, 2-14, 4-12 seasons... we started a complete makeover of our team. There were opportunities to trade up for franchise QB's in Matt Stafford and Matt Ryan. And much to the delight of many CP'ers, those trades were not pursued. The rallying cry around here was "build the team, then add the QB... we have too many holes on the team to trade up for a QB."

Well, we are there now. We have built a nice team, and have played ourselves out of the Luck/RGIII option.

Not sure if Tannehill is the option either... but that is why Pioli and Crennel get paid the big bucks. Without a franchise QB... we take on the look of the Minnesot Vikings the past decade. Great team... no QB.

Bowser
04-02-2012, 10:34 AM
http://www.mockingthedraft.com/2012/3/30/2912276/nfl-mock-draft-2012-college-pro-days-are-pretty-much-done#storyjump

LMAO

:facepalm:

Chiefnj2
04-02-2012, 10:44 AM
The media is quick to highlight the good things about Tannehill - I've read Cosell's quote about Tannehill having better accuracy than Luck or Griffin when on the run. I've read Mayock loves him. All those reports ignore the last few sentences that always appear with a Tannehill assessment:

"One thing we know for certain: He likely will be drafted higher than his body of work suggests he should be." Cosell

"But I don’t think he’s ready to play Day 1. I don’t think he trusts his reads yet. He’s got a long way to go, but I think he’s got the tools necessary to be a franchise quarterback." Mayock.

Coogs
04-02-2012, 11:04 AM
The media is quick to highlight the good things about Tannehill - I've read Cosell's quote about Tannehill having better accuracy than Luck or Griffin when on the run. I've read Mayock loves him. All those reports ignore the last few sentences that always appear with a Tannehill assessment:

"One thing we know for certain: He likely will be drafted higher than his body of work suggests he should be." Cosell

"But I don’t think he’s ready to play Day 1. I don’t think he trusts his reads yet. He’s got a long way to go, but I think he’s got the tools necessary to be a franchise quarterback." Mayock.


I've posted this before in this thread. I'm not sure if we traded for Tannehill that he should start, BUT...

LT - Albert
LG - Lilja
C - Hudson
RG - Asamoah
RT - Winston

Add to that all of our weapons at the skill positions, and the table is set for a rookie to come in and play. Pretty similar to when Rothlesberger stepped into the starting role in Pittsburgh. Just don't screw it up, and get on the job training instead of holding the clip board.

And FWIW, I would like to see Stanzi get a shot. Pioli and Crennel have seen him for a full year now, and appear to still be beating the QB trail though, so who knows on that front either. They must think he is not the long term answer.

Coogs
04-02-2012, 11:50 AM
With this pick, the Chiefs surrender their first this year, their second this year (44th overall), and their first next year.

Fuck that shit.
Posted via Mobile Device

If after their evaluations, Pioli and Crennel deem Tannehill is a franchise QB... and Stanzi is not... then I would be OK with this. The faiders gave up a 1st and a 2nd for Palmer. I would much rather give up a 1st and a 2nd for a young franchise guy. And again... this is only if Pioli and Crennel view Tannehill as a can't miss guy after their evaluations.

Frankie
04-02-2012, 11:59 AM
Eagles, Chiefs jump into the Tannehill tourney

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/eagles-chiefs-jump-into-the-tannehill-tourney/

With quarterbacks Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III already spoken for (barring an incredibly unlikely and unforeseen development), the top remaining quarterback on the board is Ryan Tannehill.

With the Browns (at No. 4) and the Dolphins (at No. 8) and the Seahawks (at No. 12) all apparently very interested in the converted whom Greg Cosell believes is more accurate on the run than Luck or Griffin, Peter King of SI.com points out in his brand-new MMQB column that the Eagles and Chiefs will each put Tannehill through a private workout.

Both already appeared on our visits and workouts tracker, but the dates hadn’t been set. Per King, the Eagles will check out Tannehill on Monday, and he’ll work out for the Chiefs later in the week.

So what does it mean? Based on history, it’s hard to say. This is the time for smokescreens and misdirections, with teams talking up players they don’t like (in the hopes someone higher on the order will take them) and saying bad things about players they hope will slip down the board.

But both the Chiefs (at No. 11) and the Eagles (at No. 15) were interested in Peyton Manning, Kansas City admittedly and Philly reportedly. And so each team has to at least be contemplating the possibility of making a move up to land a new quarterback.

The question is how high will they need to go? With the Browns believed to be interested at No. 4, the safest strategy would be to move to No. 3, which would duplicate the 1-2-3 quarterback class of 1999, when Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb, and Akili Smith came off the board in back-to-back-to-back fashion.

Of that class from thirteen years ago, only one of those three quarterbacks ever turned out to be anything. (Some would say none out of those three.) This year, the Colts, Redskins, and a team to be determined will be counting on a much higher success rate.
Wow. I've been on Tannehill-at-value bandwagon for a long time. Then with some reservation I warmed up to Tannehill-at-11. Now that this shit's getting real I'm so nervous about advocating him. My gut says he's gonna be good,... but a trade up?!!!
As much as I really really want a QB, and I really want Cassel gone, I really really don't want to trade UP to get Tannehill....

Mother****yeah!

These.

ChiefRocka
04-02-2012, 12:02 PM
I'd rather take Decastro and sell the farm next year for Matt Barkley.

suds79
04-02-2012, 12:05 PM
I'd rather take Decastro and sell the farm next year for Matt Barkley.

What on earth makes you think we're going to be drafting top 5 to get him?

philfree
04-02-2012, 12:05 PM
I've not seen enough to Tannehill to have formed a legit opinion. That is Pioli and Crennel's job to do anyway.

During our 4-12, 2-14, 4-12 seasons... we started a complete makeover of our team. There were opportunities to trade up for franchise QB's in Matt Stafford and Matt Ryan. And much to the delight of many CP'ers, those trades were not pursued. The rallying cry around here was "build the team, then add the QB... we have too many holes on the team to trade up for a QB."

Well, we are there now. We have built a nice team, and have played ourselves out of the Luck/RGIII option.

Not sure if Tannehill is the option either... but that is why Pioli and Crennel get paid the big bucks. Without a franchise QB... we take on the look of the Minnesot Vikings the past decade. Great team... no QB.

You're a good poster Coogs, but I don't think that's true. The Falcons and the Lions were not going to give those players up in trade for more picks. They were honed in on those guys just like the Colts are honed in on Luck. I agree with the rest I guess but those two guys weren't attainable for the Chiefs.

Frankie
04-02-2012, 12:05 PM
I'd rather take Decastro and sell the farm next year for Matt Barkley.

No. If I would wanna go for a QB next year, I'd try to trade my 1st this year for someone's first next year and extra picks this year. That should give us ammo next year to trade up to get a good QB.

AndChiefs
04-02-2012, 12:08 PM
No. If I would wanna go for a QB next year, I'd try to trade my 1st this year for someone's first next year and extra picks this year. That should give us ammo next year to trade up to get a good QB.

I'd be okay with it for next year. I just don't want to get caught in the trap of looking at next year (every year) and saying how much stronger it will be.

The grass is not always greener.

ChiefRocka
04-02-2012, 12:08 PM
What on earth makes you think we're going to be drafting top 5 to get him?

do you know what the term "sell the farm" means?

ChiefRocka
04-02-2012, 12:12 PM
No. If I would wanna go for a QB next year, I'd try to trade my 1st this year for someone's first next year and extra picks this year. That should give us ammo next year to trade up to get a good QB.

Sorry I'm not following, you want to trade our 1st this year for someones first plus picks next year??? :hmmm:

Coogs
04-02-2012, 12:13 PM
You're a good poster Coogs, but I don't think that's true. The Falcons and the Lions were not going to give those players up in trade for more picks. They were honed in on those guys just like the Colts are honed in on Luck. I agree with the rest I guess but those two guys weren't attainable for the Chiefs.

There was talk that both were exploring trade downs. IIRC, it was due to the cost of paying rookie QB's too much jack. In the end, there were no trade downs, and maybe the talk was just talk. But I suspect like everything in life... almost everything is for sale, for the right price.

I'm also not so sure that both Maimi and St. Louis were shopping their picks before the Falcons picked Ryan at #3. IIRC, both tried to guage the market value before settling on Jake Long and Chris Long at #1 and #2.

Dicky McElephant
04-02-2012, 12:13 PM
I'd rather take Decastro and sell the farm next year for Matt Barkley.

I'd rather trade down if I could and stockpile picks next year to move up.

BigCatDaddy
04-02-2012, 12:16 PM
do you know what the term "sell the farm" means?

Based on the Washington trade we would have to trade our next 3 entire drafts to move up from where we would likely be drafting.

Chiefnj2
04-02-2012, 12:18 PM
Based on the Washington trade we would have to trade our next 3 entire drafts to move up from where we would likely be drafting.

Only in a year with a dearth of QB talent.

Frankie
04-02-2012, 12:23 PM
Sorry I'm not following, you want to trade our 1st this year for someones first plus picks next year??? :hmmm:

Plus picks this year.

We are at a point that we can almost start drafting for depth. Maybe we can afford to have an extra, say, 2nd and 4th this year instead of our 1st.

Chocolate Hog
04-02-2012, 02:30 PM
This is a smokescreen so the Chiefs can trade down and get Kuechly.

Mr. Laz
04-02-2012, 02:34 PM
This is a smokescreen so the Chiefs can trade down and get Kuechly.
it might be ... i know that Carl Peterson loved to have late draft visits with a bunch of guys he had no intention of drafting. He thought it made him look clever.

Mr. Laz
04-02-2012, 02:42 PM
Sorry I'm not following, you want to trade our 1st this year for someones first plus picks next year??? :hmmm:
absolutely ... trade our 1st rd pick(11th) to someone who wants to move up for their high,high 2nd rd pick.

preferably trade with a perennial shitty teams so that their 1st rd pick next year is top 5.

for instances:

Cleveland doesn't draft Tannehil at #4 and he ends up falling all the way to our pick at #11. Cleveland calls and offers us their 2nd rd pick(#36) plus their 2013 1st rd (plus extras) to move back into the 1st round and grab Tannehill.

we have two 2nd round picks this year and two 1st round picks next year

Then we have the draft power to move around and get whomever we want next year.

King_Chief_Fan
04-02-2012, 02:55 PM
some of you guys need to think about replacing Pioli when he gets fired.
then everyone can see how full of it some of you are. GM'ing from a fans BB is very good entertainment

Frankie
04-02-2012, 03:54 PM
some of you guys need to think about replacing Pioli when he gets fired.
then everyone can see how full of it some of you are. GM'ing from a fans BB is very good entertainment

Nobody is claiming to be more qualified than Pioli. Pioli has had his highs and lows, the worst low being chaining us to a mediocre at best QB. But I like his savvy and adventurous draft work and most of his draft picks.

And ah yes, it IS fun playing GM on a fans' football discussion board. Pardon us for trying to have some fun, dude.

milkman
04-02-2012, 10:00 PM
some of you guys need to think about replacing Pioli when he gets fired.
then everyone can see how full of it some of you are. GM'ing from a fans BB is very good entertainment

What the fuck do you think a discussion forum is for, you dipshit?

Chocolate Hog
04-02-2012, 10:03 PM
Who is saying fire Pioli?

Coogs
04-03-2012, 08:36 AM
some of you guys need to think about replacing Pioli when he gets fired.
then everyone can see how full of it some of you are. GM'ing from a fans BB is very good entertainment

I think there are probably a few guys here who could put together a pretty damn good team.

warrior
04-03-2012, 08:41 AM
What the **** do you think a discussion forum is for, you dipshit?





ROFL

suds79
04-03-2012, 08:45 AM
some of you guys need to think about replacing Pioli when he gets fired.
then everyone can see how full of it some of you are. GM'ing from a fans BB is very good entertainment

If everybody had this mentality, then we all would be good with getting :hump: by anyone in power.

"Why complain? You're not qualified. They are. They have the job right? So go ahead and just take in the @$$"

Great line of thinking. :shake:

htismaqe
04-03-2012, 08:47 AM
Who is saying fire Pioli?

Me.

LMAO

Frankie
04-03-2012, 10:55 AM
I think there are probably a few guys here who could put together a pretty damn good team.

Thank you.

Coogs
04-03-2012, 11:01 AM
Thank you.

Your welcome!

Mr. Laz
04-03-2012, 11:30 AM
Who is saying fire Pioli?

lots

Dave Lane
04-03-2012, 12:17 PM
**** that shit.

Quote:
With this pick, the Chiefs surrender their first this year, their second this year (44th overall), and their first next year.

Posted via Mobile Device

That would make Al Davis proud.

King_Chief_Fan
04-03-2012, 12:21 PM
What the **** do you think a discussion forum is for, you dipshit?

I will tell you what it is: pure comedy. Especially from you. Biggest bag of ass hat I have ever seen

keg in kc
04-03-2012, 12:22 PM
I will tell you what it is: pure comedy. Especially from you. Biggest bag of ass hat I have ever seenI give you a 2 on the concept and a 1.5 on the delivery.

milkman
04-04-2012, 08:25 AM
I will tell you what it is: pure comedy. Especially from you. Biggest bag of ass hat I have ever seen

So, I made an impression then.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 09:07 AM
From GBN this morning...

Reading the tea leaves: Sticking with the #4 for a moment, its still looks like the ’real’ intrigue at the 2012 draft will start when Cleveland gets on the clock with the 4th pick. That of course assumes that as expected Luck goes to the Colts and the Redskins snag Griffin, while Minnesota selects Southern Cal OT Matt Kalil with the 3rd pick. If nothing else the Browns have done a good job of masking their intentions with the #4 pick. This week, for example, the Browns will have just about every player that has been associated with the pick in for a visit this week including QB Ryan Tannehill, RB Trent Richardson, WR Justin Blackmon and CB Mo Claiborne. And while Richardson appears to be the sentimental choice for the choice, at least among Browns’ fans, the Browns, which also have the 22nd and 37th picks overall, are also hosting several other top prospects at ther skill positions including RBs David Wilson and Doug Martin, both of whom would be good fits early in the second round. And Browns’ head coach Pat Shurmur was quoted at last week’s owners meetings that a quality starting RB can be found outside the first round. For the record, though, the Browns will also have second-round QBs Brandon Weeden and Kirk Cousins in for visits, while Michael Floyd will join Blackmon among the receiver set … Meanwhile, the dark horse team that could ultimately upset the early going at the 2012 draft in pursuit of QB Ryan Tannehill may be Kansas City If nothing else, it appears that the Chiefs are interested in upgrading the postion at the upcoming draft. The Chiefs have already privately worked out Tannehill and will have Cousins and Brock Osweiler in for visits. Its just not that hard to see the Chiefs thinking of trying to jump ahead of Miami at #8 if Tannehill were to get past Cleveland at the 4th pick. It would cost the Chiefs, for example, at least a third rounder to move up from the 11th pick to the 7th and a likely second rounder to get to the 6th slot. However, in a division in which the other teams feature Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers and Carson Palmer at QB, the Chiefs may feel they have to do something to stay competitive in the arms race out west.

http://www.gbnreport.com/draftbuzz.html

Micjones
04-04-2012, 09:09 AM
From GBN this morning...



http://www.gbnreport.com/draftbuzz.html

I'm getting more and more excited about the possibility of drafting Tannehill.

King_Chief_Fan
04-04-2012, 09:10 AM
So, I made an impression then.

like only you can do:D

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 09:18 AM
I'm getting more and more excited about the possibility of drafting Tannehill.

If we trade away the entire top half of our draft for Tannehill, we're stupid.

milkman
04-04-2012, 09:29 AM
If we trade away the entire top half of our draft for Tannehill, we're stupid.

That depends on how you view Tannehill.

There's a lot to like about the kid as a prospect, but his lack of experience and that team's ability to give up big leads are a concern.

But then I think Mike Sherman, who I believe is a crap coach, and I can get past that lost leads issue.

Of course, we are only talking about giving up a 3rd to move up.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 09:31 AM
If we trade away the entire top half of our draft for Tannehill, we're stupid.

The GBN report indicates we would have to forfeit one pick... a second rounder... to get to St Louis's spot.

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 09:42 AM
I'm going to have to rely on Pioli here. If they really think the kid is "it" I'm fine with moving up to get him. Color me unimpressed with what I've seen but I don't get a paycheck to study his every throw.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 10:10 AM
That depends on how you view Tannehill.

There's a lot to like about the kid as a prospect, but his lack of experience and that team's ability to give up big leads are a concern.

But then I think Mike Sherman, who I believe is a crap coach, and I can get past that lost leads issue.

Of course, we are only talking about giving up a 3rd to move up.

It's not just about how I view Tannehill (I'm not high on him) but also about how I view the Kansas City Chiefs.

His lack of experience and need of development, combined with this team's conservative nature and historical inability to develop elite talent, leaves me with a sinking feeling he'll never amount to much.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 10:11 AM
The GBN report indicates we would have to forfeit one pick... a second rounder... to get to St Louis's spot.

Your 1st and 2nd rounds should be Day 1 starters. Recent history suggests that for this team, they WILL be Day 1 starters.

You're giving up 2 Day 1 starters for a guy that might be ready in 2 or 3 years, if at all...

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 10:13 AM
It's not just about how I view Tannehill (I'm not high on him) but also about how I view the Kansas City Chiefs.

His lack of experience and need of development, combined with this team's conservative nature and historical inability to develop elite talent, leaves me with a sinking feeling he'll never amount to much.

It's kind of hard to develop elite QB's when you won't draft a player with possible elite skills. For every Tom Brady there's hundreds more QB's whose name would only show up in trivia.

milkman
04-04-2012, 10:17 AM
Your 1st and 2nd rounds should be Day 1 starters. Recent history suggests that for this team, they WILL be Day 1 starters.

You're giving up 2 Day 1 starters for a guy that might be ready in 2 or 3 years, if at all...

Dexter McCluster.

milkman
04-04-2012, 10:21 AM
It's not just about how I view Tannehill (I'm not high on him) but also about how I view the Kansas City Chiefs.

His lack of experience and need of development, combined with this team's conservative nature and historical inability to develop elite talent, leaves me with a sinking feeling he'll never amount to much.

Your attributing "historical" with a relatively new regime.

What the Chiefs did under Jack Steadman and Carl Peterson has no bearing on the Chiefs under Scott Pioli.

But the bottom line is, you are never going to develop elite talent if you never try.

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 10:37 AM
Your attributing "historical" with a relatively new regime.

What the Chiefs did under Jack Steadman and Carl Peterson has no bearing on the Chiefs under Scott Pioli.

But the bottom line is, you are never going to develop elite talent if you never try.

I'm curious about your honest assessment of young Ryan. Elite? Worth 2 firsts and a 2nd? A first and a second or?

ChiefGator
04-04-2012, 10:52 AM
I just don't want to give up any picks on subsequent years. If they think he is the guy, do what it takes to move up. Just don't cripple us in future years, like the Redskins and Raiders have done.

In three years if we look back and say this entire draft was a wash, except we got franchise QB out of it.. I think I'ld be happy.

philfree
04-04-2012, 10:56 AM
Your 1st and 2nd rounds should be Day 1 starters. Recent history suggests that for this team, they WILL be Day 1 starters.

You're giving up 2 Day 1 starters for a guy that might be ready in 2 or 3 years, if at all...

Out of curiosity what positions do we need day one starters at for the 2012 season? NT and ?

Coogs
04-04-2012, 10:58 AM
Your 1st and 2nd rounds should be Day 1 starters. Recent history suggests that for this team, they WILL be Day 1 starters.

You're giving up 2 Day 1 starters for a guy that might be ready in 2 or 3 years, if at all...

Again, you are not really giving up your 1st. You are using it on the QB spot. You are giving up a player in the 2nd.

BigCatDaddy
04-04-2012, 10:58 AM
Out of curiosity what positions do we need day one starters at for the 2012 season? NT and ?

I guess it depends on if Hudson will be starting at C.

milkman
04-04-2012, 11:05 AM
I'm curious about your honest assessment of young Ryan. Elite? Worth 2 firsts and a 2nd? A first and a second or?

I am talking from a general perspective.

I haven't seen much of Tannehill, but what I have seen I do like his pocket presense.

If you don't have that by the time that you reach the NFL level, then you won't ever have that.

I like his ability to extend plays with his feet, and the fact that he looks downfield for a play in the passing game rather than simply tucking and running.

By all accounts he's coachable and a hard worker.

philfree
04-04-2012, 11:16 AM
I guess it depends on if Hudson will be starting at C.

IMO we'd best served to sign a FA center but that's a different conversation.

The point I was getting at is the Chiefs have a good roster across the board. They are not in a position that they have to draft a player in the first to fill a need as a day one starter. It's a luxury and it puts the Chiefs in a position to take the chance on Tannehill without neglecting other needs of the team.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:17 AM
It's kind of hard to develop elite QB's when you won't draft a player with possible elite skills. For every Tom Brady there's hundreds more QB's whose name would only show up in trivia.

I'm not talking about QBs. Look at the amount of true elite talent that has been DEVELOPED here over the past 20 years. It's not a long list...

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:17 AM
Dexter McCluster.

Javier Arenas.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:17 AM
Your attributing "historical" with a relatively new regime.

What the Chiefs did under Jack Steadman and Carl Peterson has no bearing on the Chiefs under Scott Pioli.

But the bottom line is, you are never going to develop elite talent if you never try.

The ownership is the same.

Detoxing
04-04-2012, 11:18 AM
I am talking from a general perspective.

I haven't seen much of Tannehill, but what I have seen I do like his pocket presense.

If you don't have that by the time that you reach the NFL level, then you won't ever have that.

I like his ability to extend plays with his feet, and the fact that he looks downfield for a play in the passing game rather than simply tucking and running.

By all accounts he's coachable and a hard worker.

I agree with all this, and I've pointed it out a few times. I think he's tough in the pocket. He stands there and delivers the throw when he has defensive players jumping in his face.

If anyone questions this, just watch his game vs LSU.

But i swear, 80% of this kid's throws are comebacks. It feels like every video i watch the dude is throwing to the sideline or a comeback route.

That's what worries me the most.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:18 AM
Out of curiosity what positions do we need day one starters at for the 2012 season? NT and ?

Interior line, either OG or NT. Furthermore, with the current state of the NFL, a RB, CB, S, passrusher, DE, or ILB could all be starters as well.

Detoxing
04-04-2012, 11:20 AM
The ownership is the same.

yes, because ownership = coaching.

Dude.....c'mon now.....

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:20 AM
Again, you are not really giving up your 1st. You are using it on the QB spot. You are giving up a player in the 2nd.

You are giving up two potential Day 1 starters for a guy that isn't a Day 1 starter.

Again, if Tannehill had a higher floor, it would be one thing. But he doesn't. For as high as his ceiling is, his floor is WAY too low to give up a boatload of picks for him...

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 11:21 AM
I'm not talking about QBs. Look at the amount of true elite talent that has been DEVELOPED here over the past 20 years. It's not a long list...

Recent players with good/great development. Bowe, Hali, DJ, Carr, Flowers, Berry.

Berry looks to be elite. Flowers is pretty near. Bowe developed into a stud. Hali developed from a nobody to an elite pass rusher. DJ developed into an all-pro. Carr was a low round pick who developed into a bona-fide #1.

There's certainly been developed talent on our current team. You don't go 7-9 with no QB without having talent.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:22 AM
yes, because ownership = coaching.

Dude.....c'mon now.....

Ownership and their willingness to spend money, how they want to make money, and who they hire to do each and every job below them ABSOLUTELY has an effect on EVERYTHING the team does, including coaching.

Being conservative isn't a mindset, it's a way of life. One that trickles down from the owner to the GM and beyond.

Sit here and tell me that you feel fine developing a kid like Tannehill when this is the organization that hired Romeo Crennel AND Brian Daboll in the same offseason.

Safe, safe, and more safe. This franchise needs a blankie.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 11:23 AM
You are giving up two potential Day 1 starters for a guy that isn't a Day 1 starter.


When the Packers picked Rodgers, they had all kinds of holes on that team. Think they regret spending that first round pick on a non-first day starter?

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:24 AM
Recent players with good/great development. Bowe, Hali, DJ, Carr, Flowers, Berry.

Berry looks to be elite. Flowers is pretty near. Bowe developed into a stud. Hali developed from a nobody to an elite pass rusher. DJ developed into an all-pro. Carr was a low round pick who developed into a bona-fide #1.

There's certainly been developed talent on our current team. You don't go 7-9 with no QB without having talent.

Bowe had 70 receptions and nearly 1000 yards in his rookie season. He didn't need to be developed at all.

The rest of those guys play on defense and one could argue that only Hali and DJ are currently "elite".

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:24 AM
When the Packers picked Rodgers, they had all kinds of holes on that team. Think they regret spending that first round pick on a non-first day starter?

They had Brett Favre. We have Matt Cassel.

philfree
04-04-2012, 11:27 AM
Interior line, either OG or NT. Furthermore, with the current state of the NFL, a RB, CB, S, passrusher, DE, or ILB could all be starters as well.

And those are high level needs that the Chiefs must have to start the season? Is there a NT that's worth #11 that's a day one starter? I don't think so.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:29 AM
And those are high level needs that the Chiefs must have to start the season? Is there a NT that's worth #11 that's a day one starter? I don't think so.

There's only one position the Chiefs NEED Day 1 if then want to be contenders and that's QB.

Tannehill isn't that. Hell, he might not even be ready to start next year. He might NEVER be ready to start.

If you're going to take a guy like Tannehill, you need those other picks because guys like Hali, DJ, Bowe, etc. aren't going to be here when he's ready to play.

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 11:32 AM
Bowe had 70 receptions and nearly 1000 yards in his rookie season. He didn't need to be developed at all.

The rest of those guys play on defense and one could argue that only Hali and DJ are currently "elite".

How many "elite" players does any team have? Just because a player isn't elite doesn't mean we didn't do a good job developing them. If you don't have the physical tools to be elite you will NEVER be elite. You could develop me all you want and I would never be an elite player in the NFL.

We would have to look at whether players have reached their potential or not. A lot of our players are viewed to play at or above what many expected them to reach. Unfortunately, all analysis of potential and development is subjective.

One thing we do know, however, is that we have had no real QB to develop in DECADES. You draft a 3rd-5th round QB to be your backup. You draft a 1st-2nd round QB to be a starter. Sure their are exceptions but you've got to be a whole lot luckier to strike it rich later in the draft than early.

Whether or not Tannehill is the guy or not we really have to track record to say that we CAN'T develop him. We haven't tried. Failing at developing a Ryan Sims, for example, is not failing at developing a QB.

Cassel has probably reached his legitimate ceiling in his 27-7 year. He's an average QB and would never have been good enough for ANY team to be a franchise QB.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:35 AM
How many "elite" players does any team have? Just because a player isn't elite doesn't mean we didn't do a good job developing them. If you don't have the physical tools to be elite you will NEVER be elite. You could develop me all you want and I would never be an elite player in the NFL.

We would have to look at whether players have reached their potential or not. A lot of our players are viewed to play at or above what many expected them to reach. Unfortunately, all analysis of potential and development is subjective.

One thing we do know, however, is that we have had no real QB to develop in DECADES. You draft a 3rd-5th round QB to be your backup. You draft a 1st-2nd round QB to be a starter. Sure their are exceptions but you've got to be a whole lot luckier to strike it rich later in the draft than early.

Whether or not Tannehill is the guy or not we really have to track record to say that we CAN'T develop him. We haven't tried. Failing at developing a Ryan Sims, for example, is not failing at developing a QB.

Cassel has probably reached his legitimate ceiling in his 27-7 year. He's an average QB and would never have been good enough for ANY team to be a franchise QB.

If we HAD drafted a 1st round QB, who was going to develop them? Marty? Dick Curl? Gunther?

Look at the history of the Hunts and this team - look at the names. Our head coach is Romeo Crennel and his OC is Brian Daboll, who has never fielded an offense in the upper TWO THIRDS of the league.

Taking Tannehill is as close as you can get to throwing away a pick with this team. Why trade so that you can throw away more than 1?

milkman
04-04-2012, 11:35 AM
I'm not talking about QBs. Look at the amount of true elite talent that has been DEVELOPED here over the past 20 years. It's not a long list...

In the last three years, guys like Hali and DJ, who were threading water, have been devloped into elite talent, along with Flowers and (arguably) Carr.

I might add Charles to that, though one could argue that all he needed was the opportunity.

philfree
04-04-2012, 11:35 AM
Ownership and their willingness to spend money, how they want to make money, and who they hire to do each and every job below them ABSOLUTELY has an effect on EVERYTHING the team does, including coaching.

Being conservative isn't a mindset, it's a way of life. One that trickles down from the owner to the GM and beyond.

Sit here and tell me that you feel fine developing a kid like Tannehill when this is the organization that hired Romeo Crennel AND Brian Daboll in the same offseason.

Safe, safe, and more safe. This franchise needs a blankie.

If after all the years of the Chiefs not developing their own QB and with the glaring need to do so, all you can do is come up with reasons not to take a chance on it now, LOL, I think maybe you need a blankie. Pass on a QB because Romeo is our HC and Daboll is our OC? WE should pass on a QB because the Chiefs/Hunts have never developed one and they probably never will so why waste the picks? Really?

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:36 AM
In the last three years, guys like Hali and DJ, who were threading water, have been devloped into elite talent, along with Flowers and (arguably) Carr.

I might add Charles to that, though one could argue that all he needed was the opportunity.

And all of those guys will be over-the-hill by the time Tannehill is ready. If you're going to take Tannehill, you NEED those extra picks to backfill positions that will be needed if and when he's ready to play.

philfree
04-04-2012, 11:37 AM
There's only one position the Chiefs NEED Day 1 if then want to be contenders and that's QB.

Tannehill isn't that. Hell, he might not even be ready to start next year. He might NEVER be ready to start.

If you're going to take a guy like Tannehill, you need those other picks because guys like Hali, DJ, Bowe, etc. aren't going to be here when he's ready to play.

So what's your answer/solution to the problem? Punt?

Edit: If a QB can't be ready to take the field after one year on the bench then he shouldn't be drafted in the first round. IMO all this 2-4 years to be ready is overblown and exagerated. After a year on the bench you're going to learn about all you can without being on the field.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:38 AM
If after all the years of the Chiefs not developing their own QB and with the glaring need to do so, all you can do is come up with reasons not to take a chance on it now, LOL, I think maybe you need a blankie. Pass on a QB because Romeo is our HC and Daboll is our OC? WE should pass on a QB because the Chiefs/Hunts have never developed one and they probably never will so why waste the picks? Really?

We're talking about Ryan Tannehill, not ANY QB.

This QB needs SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT. He needs to go to a team that has the right staff to do that.

I'm ALL FOR taking a QB. I'm just not for taking Ryan Tannehill. And I'm definitely not for trading picks to get him.

milkman
04-04-2012, 11:39 AM
If we HAD drafted a 1st round QB, who was going to develop them? Marty? Dick Curl? Gunther?

Look at the history of the Hunts and this team - look at the names. Our head coach is Romeo Crennel and his OC is Brian Daboll, who has never fielded an offense in the upper TWO THIRDS of the league.

Taking Tannehill is as close as you can get to throwing away a pick with this team. Why trade so that you can throw away more than 1?

It's hard to argue that DaBoll is any good, but it's also reasonable to argue that he's been in some tough situations, and it can be argued that he got more from Matt Moore in the second half of last season than one could reasonbly have expected.

Jim Zorn also did a good job of bringing Joe Flacco along, and Charlie Batch had his best season under Zorn's tutelage.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:39 AM
So what's your answer/solution to the problem? Punt?

My ultimate answer would be to root for another team because this one is going absolutely nowhere.

Given that such a divorce is emotionally impossible, I have to look at the scenarios that give them the best possible chance to win.

In this case, that's not Ryan Tannehill.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:40 AM
I'd rather take Foles all things considered.

milkman
04-04-2012, 11:41 AM
It also should be noted that Matt Hasselbeck had his best years with Jim Zorn.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:42 AM
It's hard to argue that DaBoll is any good, but it's also reasonable to argue that he's been in some tough situations, and it can be argued that he got more from Matt Moore in the second half of last season than one could reasonbly have expected.

Jim Zorn also did a good job of bringing Joe Flacco along, and Charlie Batch had his best season under Zorn's tutelage.

Charlie Batch was the most-accomplished QB in Eastern Michigan history and a multi-year starter.

Neither him nor Flacco were anywhere close to as raw as Tannehill is.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 11:42 AM
They had Brett Favre. We have Matt Cassel.

Exactly! And they had holes all over their team, yet they spent a 1st round pick on a QB who was not going to play. We have some holes, but not that many really. And some of the holes we have can be filled by 3rd and 4th round players (C and NT).

1st Tannehill QB
3rd Chapman NT
4th Molk C

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:43 AM
It also should be noted that Matt Hasselbeck had his best years with Jim Zorn.

I believe Hasselbeck was a two year fulltime starter at BC.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:43 AM
Exactly! And they had holes all over their team, yet they spent a 1st round pick on a QB who was not going to play. We have some holes, but not that many really. And some of the holes we have can be filled by 3rd and 4th round players (C and NT).

1st Tannehill QB
3rd Chapman NT
4th Molk C

They didn't trade picks for Rodgers. They drafted him at the END of the 1st round. They GOT tremendous value.

You're talking about giving up value to take Tannehill.

There's no comparison.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 11:44 AM
And all of those guys will be over-the-hill by the time Tannehill is ready. If you're going to take Tannehill, you NEED those extra picks to backfill positions that will be needed if and when he's ready to play.

They will have another draft next year. Shoot they might even have one the year after too! Fill some of those spots then.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:45 AM
They will have another draft next year. Shoot they might even have one the year after too! Fill some of those spots then.

There's a possibility a move to #6 could cost picks in next year's draft.

philfree
04-04-2012, 11:46 AM
And all of those guys will be over-the-hill by the time Tannehill is ready. If you're going to take Tannehill, you NEED those extra picks to backfill positions that will be needed if and when he's ready to play.

You're talking about two picks? If we end up with a franchise QB there will be plenty of time to fill roster spots with talent so we have a chance at a championship caliber team. I would think that we'd stand a better chance to win with Tannehill next year and the year after then we do with Cassel.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:47 AM
And for the record, if they draft Tannehill - even if they trade up to do it - I'll be on-board and happy.

I also won't be surprised at all if he never amounts to anything.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 11:48 AM
They didn't trade picks for Rodgers. They drafted him at the END of the 1st round. They GOT tremendous value.

You're talking about giving up value to take Tannehill.

There's no comparison.

One 2nd round pick for a potential franchise QB. If Pioli and Crennel see him as that... then the price is cheap. Now the individual workout has been done, so they should know if that is the direction they want to go or not. We are not going to know until draft day.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 11:49 AM
There's a possibility a move to #6 could cost picks in next year's draft.

There is always Jax at #7 to try and trade with if St. Louis gets unreasonable.

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 11:50 AM
It also should be noted that Matt Hasselbeck had his best years with Jim Zorn.

And Matt Cassel his worst

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:52 AM
You're talking about two picks? If we end up with a franchise QB there will be plenty of time to fill roster spots with talent so we have a chance at a championship caliber team. I would think that we'd stand a better chance to win with Tannehill next year and the year after then we do with Cassel.

Tannehill would have to get on the field first and it is my opinion that he won't. Not with this team.

philfree
04-04-2012, 11:52 AM
My ultimate answer would be to root for another team because this one is going absolutely nowhere.

Given that such a divorce is emotionally impossible, I have to look at the scenarios that give them the best possible chance to win.

In this case, that's not Ryan Tannehill.

Perhaps not in 2012 but he could very well be our best chance in the near future.

What's your addrress I'm going to send you a Cassel jersey.

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 11:52 AM
You're talking about two picks? IF we end up with a franchise QB there will be plenty of time to fill roster spots with talent so we have a chance at a championship caliber team. I would think that we'd stand a better chance to win with Tannehill next year and the year after then we do with Cassel.

This tiny word is the problem. I don't see it. If the scouts do then I'm on board.

milkman
04-04-2012, 11:53 AM
Charlie Batch was the most-accomplished QB in Eastern Michigan history and a multi-year starter.

Neither him nor Flacco were anywhere close to as raw as Tannehill is.

Joe Flacco is bigger and has a stronger arm, but neither Batch nor Flacco have the total package of physical gifts and the instinctive pocket presense that Tannehill possesses.

Tannehill has the tools to develop, and I'm not going dismiss this regime's ability to develop those tools based on the inability of previous regimes.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:55 AM
The ideal time to take a QB was immediately after Pioli and Haley were hired.

We have a GM who is feeling a bit of heat, a HC who is old and needs to win immediately to repair his legacy, and an owner who needs to sell tickets.

I've said it before - I personally feel this whole conversation is moot because they'll never take a risk like we're discussing here.

But if they do draft Tannehill, the scenario I see is that he sits for 2 years and then gets dumped by the new coach coming in...

milkman
04-04-2012, 11:56 AM
And Matt Cassel his worst

People look at Matt Cassel last year and say, "oh he regressed".

That isn't true.

He simply didn't have nearly the soft schedule and the weapons that hid his deficiencies.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 11:56 AM
Joe Flacco is bigger and has a stronger arm, but neither Batch nor Flacco have the total package of physical gifts and the instinctive pocket presense that Tannehill possesses.

Tannehill has the tools to develop, and I'm not going dismiss this regime's ability to develop those tools based on the inability of previous regimes.

It's not the inability of previous regimes, it's about the complete UNWILLINGNESS of previous regimes. Where do you think that comes from? Here's a hint, he's still here and running the team.

And if you want to talk about inability, lets talk about the CURRENT regime and their ineptitude at each and every stop prior to coming to KC.

philfree
04-04-2012, 11:59 AM
Tannehill would have to get on the field first and it is my opinion that he won't. Not with this team.

You don't think he'll make it with any team or just the Chiefs? If you don't think he's the guy then that's one thing but if you're building up all these reasons why he won't be the guy based on the history of the Chiefs and on who the coaching staff is right now then you're just messed up. I understand it, you're a frustrated Chiefs fan. I have to ask though. If not this staff then which unknown group of coaches are the Chiefs going to hire that will make it o.k. to take a chance on a QB?

philfree
04-04-2012, 12:01 PM
The ideal time to take a QB was immediately after Pioli and Haley were hired.

We have a GM who is feeling a bit of heat, a HC who is old and needs to win immediately to repair his legacy, and an owner who needs to sell tickets.

I've said it before - I personally feel this whole conversation is moot because they'll never take a risk like we're discussing here.

But if they do draft Tannehill, the scenario I see is that he sits for 2 years and then gets dumped by the new coach coming in...

So Sanchex was the answer? If it wasn't him then who?

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:02 PM
You don't think he'll make it with any team or just the Chiefs?

There's a number of teams that don't have the tools develop him, the Chiefs being one.

If you don't think he's the guy then that's one thing but if you're building up all these reasons why he won't be the guy based on the history of the Chiefs and on who the coaching staff is right now then you're just messed up.

I think he's a guy with an EXTREMELY low floor, which means he has a high possibility of not becoming what this team needs him to be. When you COMBINE that with this team, its history, and the current front office and staff, I see a guy that's probably destined to fail.

I understand it, you're a frustrated Chiefs fan. I have to ask though. If not this staff then which unknown group of coaches are the Chiefs going to hire that will make it o.k. to take a chance on a QB?

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't take a QB. I'm saying I wouldn't take Ryan Tannehill.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:04 PM
So Sanchex was the answer? If it wasn't him then who?

Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Nate Davis. There were options.

milkman
04-04-2012, 12:04 PM
It's not the inability of previous regimes, it's about the complete UNWILLINGNESS of previous regimes. Where do you think that comes from? Here's a hint, he's still here and running the team.

And if you want to talk about inability, lets talk about the CURRENT regime and their ineptitude at each and every stop prior to coming to KC.

You've become as jaded about this team as I was when Marty, Gunther, Dick, and Herman fucking Edwards were the coaches.

I wasn't on board when Scott Pioli was hired, and there are some decisions he's made that I still scratch my head about, and will be more to come, I'm sure.

But, overall, I like the direction this team has taken under him, and I disagree with the presumption that Clark Hunt is keeping this team from drafting and developing a QB.

Cleveland with Phil Savage, and Miami with Jeff Ireland.

Not exactly ideal situations.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 12:06 PM
Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't take a QB. I'm saying I wouldn't take Ryan Tannehill.

To be honest with you, I don't know either. BUT, I am encouraged that we have already brought him in (or went there) for a private workout. It shows at the very least that they are doing their due diligence with respect to Tannehill... one way or the other.

philfree
04-04-2012, 12:06 PM
There's a number of teams that don't have the tools develop him, the Chiefs being one.



I think he's a guy with an EXTREMELY low floor, which means he has a high possibility of not becoming what this team needs him to be. When you COMBINE that with this team, its history, and the current front office and staff, I see a guy that's probably destined to fail.



Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't take a QB. I'm saying I wouldn't take Ryan Tannehill.

So we take Foles in the 3rd round and he has a better chance then Tannehill to be the QB for the Chiefs and lead them to a SB? Or it just won't hurt as much if it don't work out?

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:07 PM
You've become as jaded about this team as I was when Marty, Gunther, Dick, and Herman ****ing Edwards were the coaches.

Yep. And as much as I'd like to blame myself for that, I think the two decades without a playoff win is more likely the culprit.

I wasn't on board when Scott Pioli was hired, and there are some decisions he's made that I still scratch my head about, and will be more to come, I'm sure.

But, overall, I like the direction this team has taken under him, and I disagree with the presumption that Clark Hunt is keeping this team from drafting and developing a QB.

I think he's built a talented team but one that doesn't look all that different than those powerhouses we had in the mid-90s. That doesn't excite me at all.

And I absolutely DO think Clark Hunt is keeping this team from drafting and developing a QB.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:07 PM
So we take Foles in the 3rd round and he has a better chance then Tannehill to be the QB for the Chiefs and lead them to a SB? Or it just won't hurt as much if it don't work out?

The latter.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:08 PM
To be honest with you, I don't know either. BUT, I am encouraged that we have already brought him in (or went there) for a private workout. It shows at the very least that they are doing their due diligence with respect to Tannehill... one way or the other.

It shows at the very least that they know the fans are watching. Kind of like when they expressed public interest in Kyle Orton and Peyton Manning when they knew up front neither of them would even answer the phone.

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 12:09 PM
People look at Matt Cassel last year and say, "oh he regressed".

That isn't true.

He simply didn't have nearly the soft schedule and the weapons that hid his deficiencies.

But I don't think anyone would claim he ascended. He regressed / stayed the same. I say this just to consider that Zorn may not be the QB whisperer for every QB.

philfree
04-04-2012, 12:12 PM
Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Nate Davis. There were options.

The verdict's not in for Sanchex or Freeman but so far it doesn't appear that we missed the boat on those guys.

milkman
04-04-2012, 12:13 PM
I think he's built a talented team but one that doesn't look all that different than those powerhouses we had in the mid-90s. That doesn't excite me at all.

I see a team that's more well rounded and balanced.

Coogs
04-04-2012, 12:13 PM
It shows at the very least that they know the fans are watching. Kind of like when they expressed public interest in Kyle Orton and Peyton Manning when they knew up front neither of them would even answer the phone.

Even if that is all it is, their chances of finding a QB are much greater by working them out, than not working them out. Like I said, they are putting in the leg work on Tannehill. As a fan, that is the very least that they need to do IMO.

philfree
04-04-2012, 12:14 PM
The latter.

O.K.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:14 PM
The verdict's not in for Sanchex or Freeman but so far it doesn't appear that we missed the boat on those guys.

Both of them started in their rookie years, something Ryan Tannehill almost assuredly won't do.

philfree
04-04-2012, 12:14 PM
I see a team that's more well rounded and balanced.

I agree.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:15 PM
O.K.

I won't lie to you and tell you that part of this is not a defense mechanism.

When you root for a team that is in the same realm as the Browns, Bengals, and Lions, you come to expect the worst. It's best to psyche yourself out before the hope ever starts to build, it's much less painful.

philfree
04-04-2012, 12:19 PM
Both of them started in their rookie years, something Ryan Tannehill almost assuredly won't do.

He probably won't but I don't see why that matters in the quest to find a franchise QB.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:21 PM
He probably won't but I don't see why that matters in the quest to find a franchise QB.

Freeman had significantly more development coming in. Both of them saw action early, further accelerating their development.

Here we are in year 4 discussing whether or not Sanchez is a bust.

It's highly likely that in year 4, people will be saying Tannehill "just needs more time, he's only been a starter for 1 year".

The NFL doesn't have much tolerance for long development cycles. Not with a team that is going to GUARANTEED coaching turnover in the next few years simply due to age.

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 12:36 PM
How about this htismaqe...assuming Tannehill were to drop to #11 (so we didn't have to give up any picks). What QB's would you take other than him? Also, what's the highest round you would take them in?

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:43 PM
How about this htismaqe...assuming Tannehill were to drop to #11 (so we didn't have to give up any picks). What QB's would you take other than him? Also, what's the highest round you would take them in?

I think Tannehill is a mid-first guy. I'd be ok with taking him at 11 but would be even better with it if they were able to trade down and take him around 17.

philfree
04-04-2012, 12:47 PM
Freeman had significantly more development coming in. Both of them saw action early, further accelerating their development.

Here we are in year 4 discussing whether or not Sanchez is a bust.

It's highly likely that in year 4, people will be saying Tannehill "just needs more time, he's only been a starter for 1 year".

The NFL doesn't have much tolerance for long development cycles. Not with a team that is going to GUARANTEED coaching turnover in the next few years simply due to age.

He'll be on the field in 2013 if the Chiefs draft him. All this "won't be ready for 2-4 years" talk is tripe IMO. Since so much has to do with the Hunts and how they do things do you really think that Clark will use a 1st round pick or a 1st and a 2nd or 3rd on a QB and not get him on the field? I don't think Clark is going to just let his investment go to waste while his 1st round QB sits on the bench? Tannehill will get a year and then he'll be the man wether he's ready or not.

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 12:48 PM
I think Tannehill is a mid-first guy. I'd be ok with taking him at 11 but would be even better with it if they were able to trade down and take him around 17.

In my example Seattle takes him at 12 if we don't. :D:evil:

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:49 PM
He'll be on the field in 2013 if the Chiefs draft him. All this "won't be ready for 2-4 years" talk is tripe IMO. Since so much has to do with the Hunts and how they do things do you really think that Clark will use a 1st round pick or a 1st and a 2nd or 3rd on a QB and not get him on the field? I don't think Clark is going to just let his investment go to waste while his 1st round QB sits on the bench? Tannehill will get a year and then he'll be the man wether he's ready or not.

Then he's going to be a horrific bust.

It's a lose-lose, so it should be perfect for the Chiefs.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:50 PM
In my example Seattle takes him at 12 if we don't. :D:evil:

If we're talking realistic scenarios, he never probably gets past the Dolphins anyway, so it's all moot. :)

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 12:51 PM
If we're talking realistic scenarios, he never probably gets past the Dolphins anyway, so it's all moot. :)

I'm basically just trying to get an idea of who you think is a better choice for us than taking the risk on Tannehill. If it's no one this year, so be it. I'm just curious.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 12:53 PM
I'm basically just trying to get an idea of who you think is a better choice for us than taking the risk on Tannehill. If it's no one this year, so be it. I'm just curious.

I'm not necessarily arguing against taking Tannehill at #11 - I'm much more opposed to trading picks for him.

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 12:55 PM
I'm not necessarily arguing against taking Tannehill at #11 - I'm much more opposed to trading picks for him.

So if we were to have to give up our second round pick to move up to 6 or 7 and take him...you'd say no. In that scenario who would you pick and in what round?

Bowser
04-04-2012, 12:59 PM
Do NOT give up picks, either this year or future, to move up for this guy. He is NOT the next Aaron Rodgers.

philfree
04-04-2012, 01:00 PM
Then he's going to be a horrific bust.

It's a lose-lose, so it should be perfect for the Chiefs.

That's your opinion but at this point it's nowhere near fact. And just because he's starting doesn't mean that as a team you aren't doing things to bring him along slowly. Heck Tannehill's every bit the prospect(better IMO) Sanchex was coming out and he's had a few more starts. You would have been O.K. with starting Sanchex if we had drafted him three years ago though.

What's your biggest fear again? I mean about the Chiefs LOL.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 01:02 PM
So if we were to have to give up our second round pick to move up to 6 or 7 and take him...you'd say no. In that scenario who would you pick and in what round?

In the first, at 11, I'd take any number of guys - Barron, DeCastro, Kuechly, whoever...

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 01:03 PM
That's your opinion but at this point it's nowhere near fact. And just because he's starting doesn't mean that as a team you aren't doing things to bring him along slowly. Heck Tannehill's every bit the prospect(better IMO) Sanchex was coming out and he's had a few more starts. You would have been O.K. with starting Sanchex if we had drafted him three years ago though.

What's your biggest fear again? I mean about the Chiefs LOL.

Tannehill is every bit the prospect Sanchez was?

ROFL

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 01:06 PM
In the first, at 11, I'd take any number of guys - Barron, DeCastro, Kuechly, whoever...

Sorry I was meaning which QB would you draft this year rather than moving up to 6 to take Tannehill. If any.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 01:07 PM
Sorry I was meaning which QB would you draft this year rather than moving up to 6 to take Tannehill. If any.

I might take a flyer on Foles depending on how the draft falls. Otherwise, I'd stick with Stanzi and look to next year.

rico
04-04-2012, 01:10 PM
If we're talking realistic scenarios, he never probably gets past the Dolphins anyway, so it's all moot. :)

And considering the Sherman connection, if the Dolphins don't make a huge effort to land him, that should be a HUGE red flag.... similar to how them not pursuing Flynn as aggressively as speculated was probably a serious red flag.

In terms of him being coachable, wasn't the reason he was converted to WR his freshman year due to being admittedly "cocky?" I'm sure his attitude has changed since his Freshman year, but there has obviously been some lack of coachability issues in his time at A+M.

I am not sold on this guy AT ALL. I don't understand why he was even mentioned as a 1st round QB prospect in the first place. He fails the eye test for me. He appears awkward and looks as if he is going to trip over his feet on his drop backs. His stats are mediocre even when compared to other Big 12 QBs and he has shown a history of 2nd half meltdowns. I understand why there is buzz about him now... because Mayock is shlobbing his knob (whether you give that guy's knob-shlobbing any merit probably depends on the person), but like I inquired earlier, why was he even mentioned as being a 1st round QB prospect in the first place? I don't get it. To me it just seems like he was the randomly ordained #3 QB prospect when Barkley and Jones made it official that they would be returning to college next year.

Bowser
04-04-2012, 01:11 PM
Sorry I was meaning which QB would you draft this year rather than moving up to 6 to take Tannehill. If any.

Not to answer for htis, but I vote none. Maybe throw a fifth or sixth at Kellen Moore if you're dying for a QB this year, or maybe the kid from San Diego State.

I really think the Chiefs think they're set at QB this year. They've overvalued Cassel from day 1 and don't seemingly feel the need to think about the future of the position with him in his "prime". He'll bust this year, then they'll address it next year, which is good, seeing as how the pool will be more talent laden, in theory.

philfree
04-04-2012, 01:15 PM
Tannehill is every bit the prospect Sanchez was?

ROFL

We can disagree on that but Sanchex being drafted where he was was the product of a week QB class. Just like what went on last year in the draft and what's going on this year.

What was Sanchex doing when he came out that made him a better prospect? Arm strength? No. Experience? NO. Mobility in and out of the pocket? NO. He went to USC and was surrounded by awsome talent? Yes and he was blown so hard be Mecca that his head almost caved in.

Fot the record if we hadn't acquired Cassel I would have been all for drafting Sanchex. LOL I hate him now though.

BigCatDaddy
04-04-2012, 01:17 PM
And considering the Sherman connection, if the Dolphins don't make a huge effort to land him, that should be a HUGE red flag.... similar to how them not pursuing Flynn as aggressively as speculated was probably a serious red flag.

In terms of him being coachable, wasn't the reason he was converted to WR his freshman year due to being admittedly "cocky?" I'm sure his attitude has changed since his Freshman year, but there has obviously been some lack of coachability issues in his time at A+M.

I am not sold on this guy AT ALL. I don't understand why he was even mentioned as a 1st round QB prospect in the first place. He fails the eye test for me. He appears awkward and looks as if he is going to trip over his feet on his drop backs. His stats are mediocre even when compared to other Big 12 QBs and he has shown a history of 2nd half meltdowns. I understand why there is buzz about him now... because Mayock is shlobbing his knob (whether you give that guy's knob-shlobbing any merit probably depends on the person), but like I inquired earlier, why was he even mentioned as being a 1st round QB prospect in the first place? I don't get it. To me it just seems like he was the randomly ordained #3 QB prospect when Barkley and Jones made it official that they would be returning to college next year.

I wouldn't assume anything the Dolphins do is a smart move. You aren't talking the Steelers here.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 01:21 PM
We can disagree on that but Sanchex being drafted where he was was the product of a week QB class. Just like what went on last year in the draft and what's going on this year.

What was Sanchex doing when he came out that made him a better prospect? Arm strength? No. Experience? NO. Mobility in and out of the pocket? NO. He went to USC and was surrounded by awsome talent? Yes and he was blown so hard be Mecca that his head almost caved in.

Fot the record if we hadn't acquired Cassel I would have been all for drafting Sanchex. LOL I hate him now though.

Sanchez had a higher completion percentage as a full-time starter and threw for 500 less years despite having nearly TWO HUNDRED less attempts.

Even if you want to toss aside all of the other arguments I've thrown out there, Tannehill at his BEST is a dinker/dunker...

DeezNutz
04-04-2012, 01:24 PM
We can disagree on that but Sanchex being drafted where he was was the product of a week QB class. Just like what went on last year in the draft and what's going on this year.

What was Sanchex doing when he came out that made him a better prospect? Arm strength? No. Experience? NO. Mobility in and out of the pocket? NO. He went to USC and was surrounded by awsome talent? Yes and he was blown so hard be Mecca that his head almost caved in.

Fot the record if we hadn't acquired Cassel I would have been all for drafting Sanchex. LOL I hate him now though.

The "Sanchex" bit is ridiculous, no?

Also, realize that he was a five-star prospect coming out of high school, who didn't become a WR, who then put up very good numbers in college.

Inexperience was certainly a concern with him when he entered the draft, though.

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 01:36 PM
Not to answer for htis, but I vote none. Maybe throw a fifth or sixth at Kellen Moore if you're dying for a QB this year, or maybe the kid from San Diego State.

I really think the Chiefs think they're set at QB this year. They've overvalued Cassel from day 1 and don't seemingly feel the need to think about the future of the position with him in his "prime". He'll bust this year, then they'll address it next year, which is good, seeing as how the pool will be more talent laden, in theory.

I understand what you mean by this...but I was wondering who YOU would pick this year. Not who you think the Chiefs would (or wouldn't) pick.

whoman69
04-04-2012, 01:41 PM
Not to answer for htis, but I vote none. Maybe throw a fifth or sixth at Kellen Moore if you're dying for a QB this year, or maybe the kid from San Diego State.

I really think the Chiefs think they're set at QB this year. They've overvalued Cassel from day 1 and don't seemingly feel the need to think about the future of the position with him in his "prime". He'll bust this year, then they'll address it next year, which is good, seeing as how the pool will be more talent laden, in theory.

Kellen Moore was a great system QB in college and a winner, but he has absolutely no arm and will not be drafted by any team.

Not sure what the point of drafting a 5th round project is every year. You have to give up on one of the projects before they've gotten a shot.

IMO Tannehill is being greatly exagerated in his draft position because he's a QB. He's not a first round talent and I have great concerns that he can ever be an NFL franchise QB.

suds79
04-04-2012, 01:45 PM
He'll bust this year, then they'll address it next year, which is good, seeing as how the pool will be more talent laden, in theory.

I don't think we'll be in position to draft a very highly rated QB next year. Particularly when you factor in that QBs are overvalued draft wise.

Do you think we'll be drafting higher than 11th? I don't.

I'm guessing we'll probably be picking 18th. It's like there's this QB ceiling we can't seem to break through and its maddening.

philfree
04-04-2012, 01:46 PM
Sanchez had a higher completion percentage as a full-time starter and threw for 500 less years despite having nearly TWO HUNDRED less attempts.

Even if you want to toss aside all of the other arguments I've thrown out there, Tannehill at his BEST is a dinker/dunker...

I'm not sure what you said in the first part it seems you left a word or two out. Anyways there isn't enough difference between the two players to have a huge debate about it. AS far as any stats go between the two in college they may not be apples to apples since Sanchex(No Deez, it's not to much. I think it's kinda funny.) played on such a great team. I guess the point I was getting at was that you would have been O.K. with starting Sanchex in his first year and the Chiefs would have started him but you're not O.K. with even thinking about Tannehill being a starter after sitting for a year because of the owner and coaches. And with that you end up saying/thinking that there's a good chance Tannehill will have only started 1 year by his fourth year in the league.

It sucks being a Chiefs fan:)

DeezNutz
04-04-2012, 01:46 PM
I understand what you mean by this...but I was wondering who YOU would pick this year. Not who you think the Chiefs would (or wouldn't) pick.

Cousins seems to get a lot of unfair bashing on this board. He'd be a reasonable selection in the 4th/5th.

philfree
04-04-2012, 01:51 PM
The "Sanchex" bit is ridiculous, no?

Also, realize that he was a five-star prospect coming out of high school, who didn't become a WR, who then put up very good numbers in college.

Inexperience was certainly a concern with him when he entered the draft, though.

Why does the WR thing even matter? So Sanchex sat on the bench while Tannehill was on the field as a WR. How is that a knock on Tannehill?

Same goes for being a 5 star recruit out of HS. He was so great he didn't get to play until his SR year.

Those things are just mud in the water.

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 01:53 PM
Cousins seems to get a lot of unfair bashing on this board. He'd be a reasonable selection in the 4th/5th.

I could see him being selected around there. I'd worry he doesn't have any higher ceiling than Stanzi though. I'd still take him over Quinn though.

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 01:56 PM
Why does the WR thing even matter? So Sanchex sat on the bench while Tannehill was on the field as a WR. How is that a knock on Tannehill?

Same goes for being a 5 star recruit out of HS. He was so great he didn't get to play until his SR year.

Those things are just mud in the water.

Yeah I don't get that line of bashing at all. He was the backup QB and still attended all QB meetings which means the only thing he didnt' get to do that someone like Sanchez got to do was hold a clipboard on the sideline.

I guarantee you that Tannehill understands WR's mentalities and routes better than a vast majority of QB's being drafted. And that's an important aspect of being a QB as it will help with anticipation.

Dayze
04-04-2012, 02:09 PM
I'm shocked that there is a 1400+ thread about Tannehill.

I mean, I undertand the discussion, but didn't think it would last this long.

AndChiefs
04-04-2012, 02:11 PM
I'm shocked that there is a 1400+ thread about Tannehill.

I mean, I undertand the discussion, but didn't think it would last this long.

Just a lot of us repeating the same thing over and over again. :)

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 02:22 PM
I don't think we'll be in position to draft a very highly rated QB next year. Particularly when you factor in that QBs are overvalued draft wise.

Do you think we'll be drafting higher than 11th? I don't.

I'm guessing we'll probably be picking 18th. It's like there's this QB ceiling we can't seem to break through and its maddening.

Then let's trade DOWN this year, pick up an extra first and then package that next year to move UP and get a REAL QB.

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 02:25 PM
Then let's trade DOWN this year, pick up an extra first and then package that next year to move UP and get a REAL QB.

Let's wait 20 more years there will be a QB in the draft.

DeezNutz
04-04-2012, 02:25 PM
Yeah I don't get that line of bashing at all. He was the backup QB and still attended all QB meetings which means the only thing he didnt' get to do that someone like Sanchez got to do was hold a clipboard on the sideline.

I guarantee you that Tannehill understands WR's mentalities and routes better than a vast majority of QB's being drafted. And that's an important aspect of being a QB as it will help with anticipation.

When he was playing as a WR, what was the focus of his reps in practice? Let's say that it was a 50-50 split--that's not enough. Serious developmental time is surrendered.

That's why it matters.

Was Rodgers doing nothing but holding a clipboard behind Favre in GB? Of course not. This is the same reason why it was absolutely ludicrous that some were comparing Cassel to rookie QBs.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 02:28 PM
I'm not sure what you said in the first part it seems you left a word or two out.

I'm not sure what words were missed. They were both full time starters for their entire senior season. Tannehill threw for 3700 yards on like 510 attempts. Sanchez threw for 3200 yards but only had like 360 attempts.

I guess the point I was getting at was that you would have been O.K. with starting Sanchex in his first year

Actually I didn't say that.

and the Chiefs would have started him

They might have - the Jets certainly did. Sanchez played in a pro-style offense and was NFL-ready. His ONLY knock was his lack of experience. Tannehill, on the other hand, failed to dominate in a league that favors passers, didn't display good decision making, doesn't throw a particularly good deep ball, and beyond that he ALSO has the knock of not having much experience.

but you're not O.K. with even thinking about Tannehill being a starter after sitting for a year because of the owner and coaches.

I personally think the possibility of Tannehill being ready next year is remote, regardless of who drafts him. The Chiefs lower that chance even more. That doesn't mean he won't play, it just means that he won't be ready.

And with that you end up saying/thinking that there's a good chance Tannehill will have only started 1 year by his fourth year in the league.

I'm on record stating that Tannehill is likely to never be a starting QB in this league. Reminds me of Joey Harrington actually...

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 02:29 PM
Let's wait 20 more years there will be a QB in the draft.

Of course, that's not even remotely what I said...

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Of course, that's not even remotely what I said...

People on here have been putting off drafting a QB ever since Pioli got here. 1 year turns into 4 turns into 20. The Chiefs won't be able to get Barkley and it'll be the same excuses over and over.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 02:36 PM
People on here have been putting off drafting a QB ever since Pioli got here. 1 year turns into 4 turns into 20. The Chiefs won't be able to get Barkley and it'll be the same excuses over and over.

You're assuming that drafting Tannehill = drafting a franchise QB. To me, it's a half-assed attempt. He's got bust written all over him.

"At least they're trying" isn't good enough for me.

BossChief
04-04-2012, 02:37 PM
Yep. And as much as I'd like to blame myself for that, I think the two decades without a playoff win is more likely the culprit.



I think he's built a talented team but one that doesn't look all that different than those powerhouses we had in the mid-90s. That doesn't excite me at all.

And I absolutely DO think Clark Hunt is keeping this team from drafting and developing a QB.

Why would you think Clark wouldn't want to draft a quarterback?

It's cheaper and gives the team the best chanceat sustained success.

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 02:46 PM
You're assuming that drafting Tannehill = drafting a franchise QB. To me, it's a half-assed attempt. He's got bust written all over him.

"At least they're trying" isn't good enough for me.

He has great measurables does he not?

Discuss Thrower
04-04-2012, 02:46 PM
People on here have been putting off drafting a QB ever since Pioli got here. 1 year turns into 4 turns into 20. The Chiefs won't be able to get Barkley and it'll be the same excuses over and over.

Not if they do something shrewd and/or crazy like trading this years first to a team considered most likely to suck ass next year so they can take a QB or have enough firepower to trade up without "mortgaging the future".

Frankie
04-04-2012, 02:51 PM
I also won't be surprised at all if he never amounts to anything.That goes for any QB not named Andrew Luck. And yes I'm including RG3 even. The bottom line is we now have plugged enough roster holes that we can start taking gambles on a possible QBOTF.

And Matt Cassel his worstYeah he got injured halfway through the season.

People look at Matt Cassel last year and say, "oh he regressed".

That isn't true.

He simply didn't have nearly the soft schedule and the weapons that hid his deficiencies.Plus he had half a season. Improvements under a new QB coach usually take a bit longer.

OK I'm probably fooling myself. After all we are talking about Matt Cassel whom IMO has already reached his ceiling. :(

Both of them started in their rookie years, something Ryan Tannehill almost assuredly won't do.Keep fucking doubting the powers of Matt cassel.

That said, if there's a Cassel crash I hope they replace him with Stanzi at least for a few games before considering Tannehil.

I think Tannehill is a mid-first guy. I'd be ok with taking him at 11 but would be even better with it if they were able to trade down and take him around 17.I totally agree with this. But the reality dictates that if he is there at 11, we should take him. I also do share your concerns about trading an additional 2nd to get him.

BossChief
04-04-2012, 02:53 PM
Oh yeah, I'd also like to mention that I just got done installing the house of a couple with direct ties to coaches and players of KC (family members work for team) and they said that the moment Stanzi was drafted they planned on him not playing a single down his rookie year NO MATTER WHAT. Apparently, Ricky asked to play multiple times and was told he wouldn't play his first year. He tried to force the issue in a game with Haley and that's why he got blown off. They said that was a management call and not a coaches call. Didn't say it was Pioli, just said management.

She also said they were VERY serious about Manning but that his camp didn't want to have two division teams in comp for his services.

They assured me that they are looking long and hard at quarterbacks to draft.

Mentioned that Bowe absolutely did not want to be the franchise player unless it was exclusive rights and that they fear he is gone after this year...but that was speculation on their part.

That's about it, but I can assure you that the only part of that is speculation Is the Bowe part about him leaving. The rest can be taken to the bank.

the Talking Can
04-04-2012, 02:57 PM
so our GM dictates who our HC plays at QB?


that's shoc....not

Frankie
04-04-2012, 03:05 PM
Sanchez had a higher completion percentage as a full-time starter and threw for 500 less years despite having nearly TWO HUNDRED less attempts.Sanchez also had a hell of a lot more talent around him.

I don't think we'll be in position to draft a very highly rated QB next year. Particularly when you factor in that QBs are overvalued draft wise.The way teams have filled their QB positions in the last couple of years one would think there'll be a bit less desperation out there and thus less competition for the 1st rd rated QBs next year.

Plus there are ways we can add 2013 ammo for trade ups.

Then let's trade DOWN this year, pick up an extra first and then package that next year to move UP and get a REAL QB.This is one way.

You're assuming that drafting Tannehill = drafting a franchise QB. To me, it's a half-assed attempt. He's got bust written all over him.He's got BOOM or bust written all over him, IMO.

BossChief
04-04-2012, 03:07 PM
so our GM dictates who our HC plays at QB?


that's shoc....not

It wasn't Haleys choice to play Palko in some rogue move, as has been speculated. He had no choice. Maybe he got fired for wanting to go against that...I should have asked them that...

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 03:09 PM
If Haley didn't want to play Palko then why didn't Orton start the Bears game?

Coogs
04-04-2012, 03:15 PM
If Haley didn't want to play Palko then why didn't Orton start the Bears game?

We will probably never know, but I wonder if Orton had not injured his hand on the first play of the 2nd quarter if he might not have stayed in the game longer... like the rest of the game.

And maybe it was a deal like Palmer against the Chiefs. Maybe Orton just wasn't ready to run many Chiefs plays yet.

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 03:15 PM
Cousins seems to get a lot of unfair bashing on this board. He'd be a reasonable selection in the 4th/5th.

Or the other Ryan.

Ryan Lindley. Looks like he can make all the throws and I don't see that much difference in the youtubes between him and Tannehill.

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 03:17 PM
Lindley isn't accurate, is a slug in the pocket, and doesn't make reads worth a shit.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 03:27 PM
Why would you think Clark wouldn't want to draft a quarterback?

It's cheaper and gives the team the best chanceat sustained success.

It also offers the highest probability of failure.

8-8 is the goal.

whoman69
04-04-2012, 03:28 PM
He has great measurables does he not?

Ryan Leaf had measurables. He just has too many parts of his game that suggest he won't ever become a franchise QB. I for many here the wish to draft Tannehill smacks of desperation. If you're going to choose a QB and its the wrong QB, its just another Todd Blackledge pick.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 03:29 PM
He has great measurables does he not?

He's not a RB, he's a QB.

His deep ball is not great, his arm strength is questionable, his footwork in the pocket is questionable, he fell apart in big games, and otherwise failed to put up elite numbers in a pass-friendly conference.

bricks
04-04-2012, 03:29 PM
It also offers the highest probability of failure.

8-8 is the goal.

He's smart.

8-8 keeps the fans interested.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 03:30 PM
Keep ****ing doubting the powers of Matt cassel.

That said, if there's a Cassel crash I hope they replace him with Stanzi at least for a few games before considering Tannehil.

Keep dreaming.

And prepare yourself for Brady Quinn.

Bewbies
04-04-2012, 03:30 PM
Then let's trade DOWN this year, pick up an extra first and then package that next year to move UP and get a REAL QB.

What if we have 2 picks north of 20 and the top 5 QB's are gone by pick 6 or 8? We'd be fucked. Again.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 03:32 PM
If Haley didn't want to play Palko then why didn't Orton start the Bears game?

This.

whoman69
04-04-2012, 03:33 PM
If Haley didn't want to play Palko then why didn't Orton start the Bears game?

I think it came down to Orton not having the whole playbook down. Orton was going to play part of the game or if Palko crapped his pants. Palko crapped his pants, but Orton got hurt on the first play. I don't think Orton would have come out after that had he not been hurt.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 03:35 PM
Oh yeah, I'd also like to mention that I just got done installing the house of a couple with direct ties to coaches and players of KC (family members work for team) and they said that the moment Stanzi was drafted they planned on him not playing a single down his rookie year NO MATTER WHAT. Apparently, Ricky asked to play multiple times and was told he wouldn't play his first year. He tried to force the issue in a game with Haley and that's why he got blown off. They said that was a management call and not a coaches call. Didn't say it was Pioli, just said management.

That would be mostly consistent with the Patriot way, so believable.

She also said they were VERY serious about Manning but that his camp didn't want to have two division teams in comp for his services.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Two division teams in competition drives the price up much more so than two teams in different divisions. It creates a sense of urgency from both teams that can't be matched any other way. If Manning truly said this, he is a moron.

Mentioned that Bowe absolutely did not want to be the franchise player unless it was exclusive rights and that they fear he is gone after this year...but that was speculation on their part.

This makes absolutely ZERO sense. He didn't want to be the franchise player, which allows him to negotiate with other teams, but would have been okay with being the exclusive rights franchise player, which WOULDN'T allow him to negotiate with other teams?

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 03:36 PM
I think it came down to Orton not having the whole playbook down. Orton was going to play part of the game or if Palko crapped his pants. Palko crapped his pants, but Orton got hurt on the first play. I don't think Orton would have come out after that had he not been hurt.

So Orton didn't have the whole playbook down but that didn't stop them from throwing him in behind OUR offensive line, against the BEARS pass rush, and proceed to call a FLEA FLICKER?

There's only 2 possibilities:

1) The coaches are IDIOTS or
2) They were TRYING to get Orton hurt.

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 03:36 PM
I think it came down to Orton not having the whole playbook down. Orton was going to play part of the game or if Palko crapped his pants. Palko crapped his pants, but Orton got hurt on the first play. I don't think Orton would have come out after that had he not been hurt.

I think a big duh should have gone with this post. After a few days in a new system its tough to start.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 03:37 PM
He's smart.

8-8 keeps the fans interested.

It keeps them interested ENOUGH.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 03:38 PM
What if we have 2 picks north of 20 and the top 5 QB's are gone by pick 6 or 8? We'd be ****ed. Again.

Two picks north of 20 is easily enough ammo to trade into the #6 range. It's being speculated that we could get to #7 with this year's #11 and this year's 3rd rounder...

Shag
04-04-2012, 03:52 PM
Oh yeah, I'd also like to mention that I just got done installing the house of a couple with direct ties to coaches and players of KC (family members work for team) and they said that the moment Stanzi was drafted they planned on him not playing a single down his rookie year NO MATTER WHAT.

That's what I've believed all along, despite the "Stanzi couldn't even beat out Palko" crowd. It's consistent with "The Patriot Way" because it worked for Brady. I think it was the wrong choice at the end of the season, but whatever...

Bewbies
04-04-2012, 04:02 PM
Two picks north of 20 is easily enough ammo to trade into the #6 range. It's being speculated that we could get to #7 with this year's #11 and this year's 3rd rounder...

Going to #7 from #11 is way different than 22 to 11. Besides, the QB that's the 4th-5th best next year is essentially the same thing you get this year with Tannehill. The guy with the low floor and the high ceiling.

Aaron Murray, not 6' tall. Tyler Bray, injured, hasn't won shit. Those type of guys.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:10 PM
Going to #7 from #11 is way different than 22 to 11. Besides, the QB that's the 4th-5th best next year is essentially the same thing you get this year with Tannehill. The guy with the low floor and the high ceiling.

Aaron Murray, not 6' tall. Tyler Bray, injured, hasn't won shit. Those type of guys.

I never said anything about trading from 22 to 11. I am talking about trading up from 22 to SIX.

The speculation is that, to move from #11 (1250 pts) to #7 (1500 pts), it would cost us this year's 3rd rounder (215 pts).

Let's just say we trade down and pick up an additional 1st this year, say the #21 pick. We finish 10-6, make the playoffs, and get the #24 pick ourselves. Those two picks are worth 1540 pts - the #7 pick - and 60 points from being worth the #6.

We're not talking about taking the 4th or 5th-best QB at that point, we're talking about taking the 2nd or 3rd-best QB.

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 04:10 PM
He's not a RB, he's a QB.

His deep ball is not great, his arm strength is questionable, his footwork in the pocket is questionable, he fell apart in big games, and otherwise failed to put up elite numbers in a pass-friendly conference.

I disagree with you on his arm strength and the footwork can improve. His numbers weren't bad this year against OSU, Mizzou or Baylor. His completion % sucked against OU but he still threw for 379 yards and against K-State his numbers also sucked but he still threw for 3 touchdowns.

Like I said you aren't drafting him for what he is right now. Give him 2 years on the bench he could be a pretty good QB.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:12 PM
Like I said you aren't drafting him for what he is right now. Give him 2 years on the bench he could be a pretty good QB.

2 years on the bench behind Cassel, working with Brian Daboll and this crew? Might as well move him back to WR and at least try to get something out of him.

Bewbies
04-04-2012, 04:12 PM
I never said anything about trading from 22 to 11. I am talking about trading up from 22 to SIX.

The speculation is that, to move from #11 (1250 pts) to #7 (1500 pts), it would cost us this year's 3rd rounder (215 pts).

Let's just say we trade down and pick up an additional 1st this year, say the #21 pick. We finish 10-6, make the playoffs, and get the #24 pick ourselves. Those two picks are worth 1540 pts - the #7 pick - and 60 points from being worth the #6.

We're not talking about taking the 4th or 5th-best QB at that point, we're talking about taking the 2nd or 3rd-best QB.

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree. The top QB's, the guys that people see surefire frachise picks will be gone before 5. More likely gone before 3.

I'm tired of waiting for next year. If you have a shot at a guy you think has the potential, take him...

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 04:15 PM
2 years on the bench behind Cassel, working with Brian Daboll and this crew? Might as well move him back to WR and at least try to get something out of him.

Your argument doesn't make much sense. A few post ago you wanted to wait until next year to draft a QB so why wouldn't Daboll fuck up that QB too?

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:16 PM
Your argument doesn't make much sense. A few post ago you wanted to wait until next year to draft a QB so why wouldn't Daboll **** up that QB too?

Because presumably we would get a QB that's ready and doesn't need to be developed.

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 04:17 PM
Because presumably we would get a QB that's ready and doesn't need to be developed.

That's not going to happen unless we finish 4-12 or worse. See you've already came up with 2 excuses not to draft a QB.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:17 PM
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree. The top QB's, the guys that people see surefire frachise picks will be gone before 5. More likely gone before 3.

I'm tired of waiting for next year. If you have a shot at a guy you think has the potential, take him...

Wait.

If the guys that are sure-fire franchise picks will be gone more likely before 3, why are we discussing drafting Tannehill at 7 or 11?

Guys ALWAYS slide. Always.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:18 PM
That's not going to happen unless we finish 4-12 or worse. See you've already came up with 2 excuses not to draft a QB.

Except that I'm not against drafting a QB.

I'm against drafting RYAN TANNEHILL.

Whether or not you can call him a quarterback is debatable.

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2012, 04:20 PM
Whether or not you can call him a quarterback is debatable.

That's just silly.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:23 PM
That's just silly.

OK, so I worded that somewhat strangely.

I don't view Tannehill as a top QB prospect. He has too many question marks.

So I'm not against taking a top QB prospect because I don't consider Tannehill to be one.

DeezNutz
04-04-2012, 04:26 PM
OK, so I worded that somewhat strangely.

I don't view Tannehill as a top QB prospect. He has too many question marks.

So I'm not against taking a top QB prospect because I don't consider Tannehill to be one.

He's a project, so the question becomes whether or not one should bet on elite-level athleticism. And before anyone says, "Newton is elite, and Tannehill isn't this level."

No shit. Newton's athleticism, relative to the position, is other-worldly and thus shouldn't be in the discussion.

As a prospect, Tannehill would be behind Freeman...

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:27 PM
He's a project, so the question becomes whether or not one should bet on elite-level athleticism. And before anyone says, "Newton is elite, and Tannehill isn't this level."

No shit. Newton's athleticism, relative to the position, is other-worldly and thus shouldn't be in the discussion.

As a prospect, Tannehill would be behind Freeman...

Tannehill doesn't have anywhere NEAR elite-level athleticism.

Like I said, Joey Harrington...

DeezNutz
04-04-2012, 04:31 PM
Tannehill doesn't have anywhere NEAR elite-level athleticism.

Like I said, Joey Harrington...

No, no, no. That size and that athleticism?

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:32 PM
No, no, no. That size and that athleticism?

Not sure what you're getting at?

Are you suggesting that Tannehill has a combination of size and athleticism that is SO unique you just throw out the negatives in his actual body of work and trade away picks to get him?

I think not.

DeezNutz
04-04-2012, 04:34 PM
Not sure what you're getting at?

Are you suggesting that Tannehill has a combination of size and athleticism that is SO unique you just throw out the negatives in his actual body of work and trade away picks to get him?

I think not.

Not really. Just saying that an organization would be hanging its hat on athleticism, since the other attributes aren't as impressive with this player.

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:35 PM
Not really. Just saying that an organization would be hanging its hat on athleticism, since the other attributes aren't as impressive with this player.

I absolutely agree with that.

And I would argue that, since he's a QB, hanging your hat on athleticism is pretty short-sighted.

Mr. Laz
04-04-2012, 04:36 PM
Brees sucks

htismaqe
04-04-2012, 04:38 PM
Here's one wrinkle:

If the Chiefs are planning on running a completely different offense, something that specifically caters to Tannehill's strengths (think Tebow only not as extreme) then there's more merit in the pick.

His athleticism is much more of an asset in an offense that is tailored to actually use it. The only issue there is how you back him up but that's a minor issue...

BossChief
04-04-2012, 05:49 PM
That would be mostly consistent with the Patriot way, so believable.



This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Two division teams in competition drives the price up much more so than two teams in different divisions. It creates a sense of urgency from both teams that can't be matched any other way. If Manning truly said this, he is a moron.



This makes absolutely ZERO sense. He didn't want to be the franchise player, which allows him to negotiate with other teams, but would have been okay
with being the exclusive rights franchise player, which WOULDN'T allow him to negotiate with other teams?
You can absolutely believe whatever you want.

It seems to me that Manning considered Denver a better fit than us in the AFCW and I would be willing to bet It was because Denver was willing to ship Tebow out so there would be no controversy if he had a rocky start while we were unwilling to do so. That's just a guess on my part though.

You have to remember that Peyton didn't want everyone to know his whole medical history and letting two division teams both see it would be counterproductive in that respect. He obvious had something to hide there and didn't want a division rival to know those secrets.

There are other plausible reasons I could suggest, but those two seem most realistic.

Now, as far as the Bowe info goes...we are on the outside looking in and aren't privy to the pertinent information that is behind closed doors. The difference between the exclusive and non exclusive tag is 20% or in this case about 2million.

Bowe knows that Pioli is playing hardball with him and that with the new rules we can force Bowe to either retire or play this year on the tag and then tag him again next year for a 20% increase. That means we could own him the next two years for a little under 21 million and besides retiring, there isn't a damn thing Dwayne can do about it that would make him more valuable around the league.

I'm sure Bowe is like some of us (myself included) that don't respond well to being forced to do something. Which is whats going on.

BTW, they absolutely raved about the difference Haley made with Bowe in terms of growing from a "kid" to a man.

Mentioned that Bowe passed up their kids for autographs his rookie and second years and afterwards actually apologized to them for it and even came to one of their birthday parties as a sign of such.

The wife corroborated Carrs interview that he wanted to be a Cowboy since he was a kid and that her daughter was broken hearted about him leaving and that after our last homegame, he basically made it a point to say goodbye to her. It was set in stone that he was leaving after the year...signing Routt as early as we did makes a lot more sense knowing that.

evolve27
04-04-2012, 05:56 PM
Every mock has us drafting Kuechly or Decastro. I hope Stanzi will back up instead of Quinn or we draft a 6th round or after QB who falls hard on draft day that eventually becomes a practice squad hero...

BossChief
04-04-2012, 05:58 PM
2 years on the bench behind Cassel, working with Brian Daboll and this crew? Might as well move him back to WR and at least try to get something out of him.

While it was widely scrutinized, Dabolls treatment of Colt McCoy lead him to be effective and he regressed after Daboll left.

Matt Moore seemingly thrived under Daboll last year in Miami, as well. They had the 11th ranked offense with those two working together.

Two things are for sure

1. Cassel can't run a wide open offense that Brian wants to install. He doesn't have the arm or the wits necessary.

2. Matt Cassel has shown to not be able to be "hard coached" and respond favorably.

I really want to believe Cassel will be on an extremely short leash if/when he returns as the starter...but it's hard to actually trust that belief as anything more than hope.

Time will tell

evolve27
04-04-2012, 06:04 PM
Mecca will tell

Corrected your post. Thank me later. He knows everything.

jspchief
04-04-2012, 06:08 PM
something that specifically caters to Tannehill's strengths (think Tebow only not as extreme)...

:spock:

I think you're confusing Tannehill with someone else. He's not remotely similar to Tebow. At all. Nowhere close.

BossChief
04-04-2012, 06:12 PM
OK, so I worded that somewhat strangely.

I don't view Tannehill as a top QB prospect. He has too many question marks.

So I'm not against taking a top QB prospect because I don't consider Tannehill to be one.
I don't get it, man.

You say that Stanzi is a legit franchise quarterback prospect in the same breath calling me a Iowa homer...but claim you aren't one. Puzzling, to say the least.

Then, you vehimitently argue that Trent Richardson would be a terrible pick.

You don't want any part of drafting Tanehill (considered a top ten pick quality quarterback prospect by Mayock and McShay) even though he has fantastic athleticism, a plus arm, uncoachable instincts for the position to go with tremendous poise.

I may be wrong, but I think I remember you not wanting Decastro or Kuechly, either.

Is there any pick you would actually be excited about?

Not trying to bust your balls, just genuinely want to know... because one of the few posters on here that I fully respect is Milkman and he respects you.

I guess I'm somewhat curious as to what your realistic expectations for the pick are if we can't move down.

lcarus
04-04-2012, 06:18 PM
Ryan Leaf had measurables. He just has too many parts of his game that suggest he won't ever become a franchise QB. I for many here the wish to draft Tannehill smacks of desperation. If you're going to choose a QB and its the wrong QB, its just another Todd Blackledge pick.

We are desperate. If Tannehill is the wrong QB, so be it. We gotta take a chance on someone at some point, because chances of getting a #1 overall pick at the same time a "sure thing" is sitting there in the draft is low. We can't get scared of drafting a first round QB because we whiffed on Blackledge three decades ago. This is a year where we don't really need have a lot of needs, and are in a pretty good spot in the draft to move up a few spots without giving up too much. Otherwise we're gonna continue to trot out the Matt Cassels and Kyle Ortons of the NFL forever.

BossChief
04-04-2012, 06:23 PM
Corrected your post. Thank me later. He knows everything.

Here's an interesting tidbit.

My first year of the cp mock, Mecca sent me 10 or so PMs asking me who I would take at his picks and we had some good conversations about them. He was a lot smarter than most give him credit for, but me and him butted heads quite often.

That dude was bright and knows a lot about the game and more so the college game...but the way he acted like he was never wrong rubbed lots of people the wrong way and then he would never admit to being wrong.

All that aside, the board was better when he posted here, no matter what the butthurt masses say about him.

SNR
04-04-2012, 06:44 PM
Next year's NEARLY certain 1st round QBs who will probably get drafted in the top 10: Barkley, Bray, Wilson

Out of the top 10: Jones, some other sleeper

Might declare for draft with fantastic season and assured top 10 status: Murray

Of those guys, I really like Bray and Murray. I'd be quite content with Barkley. I'd be okay with Wilson but only because he would be the only 1st round QB the Chiefs drafted since the Reagan administration. I'd be pissed off if it was Landry Jones.

Knowing our luck, the QB the Chiefs draft in the first round will assuredly be Landry Jones if they draft one at all next year.

And given a choice between drafting Landry Jones or giving up a 3rd rounder and change for Ryan Tannehill, I'll take Tannehill.

SNR
04-04-2012, 06:49 PM
I miss Dane

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 06:50 PM
He's a project, so the question becomes whether or not one should bet on elite-level athleticism. And before anyone says, "Newton is elite, and Tannehill isn't this level."

No shit. Newton's athleticism, relative to the position, is other-worldly and thus shouldn't be in the discussion.

As a prospect, Tannehill would be behind Freeman...

When was Freeman drafted again?

jspchief
04-04-2012, 06:51 PM
When was Freeman drafted again?22ish

lcarus
04-04-2012, 06:52 PM
I miss Dane

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ltjT25GyXTM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BossChief
04-04-2012, 06:55 PM
Next year's NEARLY certain 1st round QBs who will probably get drafted in the top 10: Barkley, Bray, Wilson

Out of the top 10: Jones, some other sleeper

Might declare for draft with fantastic season and assured top 10 status: Murray

Of those guys, I really like Bray and Murray. I'd be quite content with Barkley. I'd be okay with Wilson but only because he would be the only 1st round QB the Chiefs drafted since the Reagan administration. I'd be pissed off if it was Landry Jones.

Knowing our luck, the QB the Chiefs draft in the first round will assuredly be Landry Jones if they draft one at all next year.

And given a choice between drafting Landry Jones or giving up a 3rd rounder and change for Ryan Tannehill, I'll take Tannehill.

I've been screaming this the last month.

For the next 4 or 5 years, any qb within striking distance of us will have flaws that are noticeable.

No question we should make the move for Tanehill if he is there at 6 or 7...at least he gives you ALL the tools.

I'd bet good money that this is as high as we will be drafting for the next 4 years at minimum.

Dave Lane
04-04-2012, 06:59 PM
Next year's NEARLY certain 1st round QBs who will probably get drafted in the top 10: Barkley, Bray, Wilson

Out of the top 10: Jones, some other sleeper

Might declare for draft with fantastic season and assured top 10 status: Murray

Of those guys, I really like Bray and Murray. I'd be quite content with Barkley. I'd be okay with Wilson but only because he would be the only 1st round QB the Chiefs drafted since the Reagan administration. I'd be pissed off if it was Landry Jones.

Knowing our luck, the QB the Chiefs draft in the first round will assuredly be Landry Jones if they draft one at all next year.

And given a choice between drafting Landry Jones or giving up a 3rd rounder and change for Ryan Tannehill, I'll take Tannehill.

Personally I'd rather roll with Stanzi who I think is a better prospect than Tannehill than take Tanehill unless he drops to 11.

lcarus
04-04-2012, 07:01 PM
Also, if Tannehill is just another Blackledge, at the very least we have a future college football analyst. That's....something?

JohnnyV13
04-04-2012, 07:02 PM
This is why I think we should trade down with both our first and our high second. Load up on picks for next year and get the qb we want instead of what falls to us by default.

BossChief
04-04-2012, 07:09 PM
Also, Pioli has flat out said he would be ok with trading up for a quarterback, but that he wouldn't ever trade multiple first rounders to do so.

That goes out to all you guys wanting to add a future first and move both picks to move up next year.

Said it would be irresponsible of him to do such a thing.

He didn't rule out trading up in the first round to draft one, though....just not with multiple firsts.

whoman69
04-04-2012, 07:17 PM
So Orton didn't have the whole playbook down but that didn't stop them from throwing him in behind OUR offensive line, against the BEARS pass rush, and proceed to call a FLEA FLICKER?

There's only 2 possibilities:

1) The coaches are IDIOTS or
2) They were TRYING to get Orton hurt.

I think the plan was not to play him, but Palko's play forced their hand. We would have had a limited playbook that week.

SNR
04-04-2012, 07:22 PM
Didn't the Broncos do something utterly retarded like give up their first rounder next year straight up for Seattle's 2nd round pick so they could draft Alphonso Smith?

Surely there must be a handful of teams who are still that fucking retarded, right? The Vikings seem to be blustering idiots on draft day. What about the Jaguars, Titans, Jets, or Cardinals? I'll bet we can make this happen if we try hard enough.

whoman69
04-04-2012, 07:34 PM
We are desperate. If Tannehill is the wrong QB, so be it. We gotta take a chance on someone at some point, because chances of getting a #1 overall pick at the same time a "sure thing" is sitting there in the draft is low. We can't get scared of drafting a first round QB because we whiffed on Blackledge three decades ago. This is a year where we don't really need have a lot of needs, and are in a pretty good spot in the draft to move up a few spots without giving up too much. Otherwise we're gonna continue to trot out the Matt Cassels and Kyle Ortons of the NFL forever.

I am more convinced he is not that franchise QB. If this organization whiffs again on a QB, who is to say they aren't scared for another three decades? I would rather wait a little longer for the right one. I don't think Tannehill is even a first round talent, only put in the position because he's a QB and several teams are in need.

ChiefGator
04-04-2012, 07:38 PM
I don't think [INSERT QB'S NAME] is even a first round talent, only put in the position because he's a QB and several teams are in need.

Rinse and repeat next year, and the year after, and ...

whoman69
04-04-2012, 07:44 PM
Rinse and repeat next year, and the year after, and ...

Go frag yourself.

DeezNutz
04-04-2012, 07:46 PM
When was Freeman drafted again?

#17 overall.