PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Starting to think the Chiefs will need to trade down... or...


Direckshun
01-09-2012, 11:00 PM
Normally I do not advocate this stuff, because I am usually not a fan of trading down in the first round. But I've been looking over the talent in this upcoming draft and I think this might need to be the case.

First, let's take a look at the elite talent that has no chance of making it out of the first round:

QB Andrew Luck, Stanford
QB Robert Griffin, Baylor
WR Justin Blackmon, Oklahoma State
OT Matt Kalil, USC
CB Morris Claiborne, LSU

The remaining top tier talent doesn't really match up value with what we want, with one major exception.

RB Trent Richardson, Alabama
WR Alshon Jeffrey, South Carolina
OT Jonathan Martin, Stanford
OT Riley Reiff, Iowa
OG David DeCastro, Stanford
DT Devin Still, Penn State
DE Quentin Coples, North Carolina
ILB Luke Kuechly, Boston College
CB Dre Kirkpatrick, Alabama
CB Janoris Jenkins, North Alabama

Scott Pioli is a legit believer in draft value, though he has broken with it before when he drafted Eric Berry. I don't think he breaks it two out of three years however, so players like Richardson, DeCastro, and Kuechly don't really seem to warrant a Top 12 pick.

It also seems to eliminate right tackle. It's been two years of Pioli passing over right tackle after right tackle, even with last year's great prospects like Carimi and Castonzo. So I think that takes Martin (who honestly isn't right tackle material to me) and Reiff out of the equation.

Meanwhile, we can eliminate the players that don't fit our defense (Still, Coples).

That leaves us with the corners. You can take Jenkins out of consideration since there is no way Pioli wants a guy with his character questions.

Kirkpatrick is a perfect fit for this team ONLY IF this team lets Brandon Carr walk. If Carr stays on the roster, we really have no need for Kirkpatrick, either.

That leaves me to believe the Chiefs will almost certainly try to trade down until they get a tackle or one of the lesser valued positions (ILB, RB, NT) at a much better value.

chiefforlife
01-09-2012, 11:06 PM
For some reason, I have recently noticed a lot of your draft posts and have come to the conclusion....You are a pretty smart guy.
I could definitely see this unfolding and for the reasons you suggest.

SNR
01-09-2012, 11:07 PM
Do you think Pioli knows how much he sucks?

tmw4h5
01-09-2012, 11:08 PM
I think Richardson at 11/12 would be a good value pick. Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.

BigMeatballDave
01-09-2012, 11:15 PM
Do you think Pioli knows how much he sucks?

Stupid people don't know they are stupid.

Munson
01-09-2012, 11:21 PM
Richardson is worthy of being a top 10 pick. If he's there when we pick, Pioli would be stupid not to consider him because...

- he'll probably be the best player available
- he'd be a great insurance policy if Jamaal isn't the same player after the ACL injury

Alshon Jeffrey is a beast of a receiver, but I don't see Pioli taking him since Bowe will be re-signed/franchised, and we just spent a 1st rounder on Baldwin last year.

I can see us going with a G or RT, even though it wouldn't be a great value unless we trade down. If we do go OL, we definitely need to trade down.

tmw4h5
01-09-2012, 11:26 PM
Richardson is worthy of being a top 10 pick. If he's there when we pick, Pioli would be stupid not to consider him because...

- he'll probably be the best player available
- he'd be a great insurance policy if Jamaal isn't the same player after the ACL injury

Alshon Jeffrey is a beast of a receiver, but I don't see Pioli taking him since Bowe will be re-signed/franchised, and we just spent a 1st rounder on Baldwin last year.

I can see us going with a G or RT, even though it wouldn't be a great value unless we trade down. If we do go OL, we definitely need to trade down.

Agreed. We have no idea how JC will be this year coming back off the that injury. Richardson and Charles would be the most badass 1-2 punch for the next 4-5 years if JC comes back at, let's say, 90% of what he was before.

Jeffery is very raw. Very talented, but very raw. I say we keep Bowe, who is proven, and move forward with the talented three we have now and maybe we pick up a good WR in the later rounds if we absolutely need to.

But I definitely agree with the statement about the OL. We need to do something to address this, but at 11/12, there's not enough value. Trade down and grab a couple mid-round picks as well and then we're talking.

el borracho
01-09-2012, 11:31 PM
If only Bobby Beathard were still around to make dumbass trades. I would love to trade out of the 1st this year and stockpile future picks.

Bump
01-09-2012, 11:35 PM
I'd be happy with Richardson. Like someone said, JC might not come back as the same player and if JC can come back, then that's gonna be a killer 1-2 punch. Plus, we won't be getting a QB in the 1st so, if we want any offense next season, that's the best option.

gold_and_red
01-10-2012, 12:30 AM
I'd be happy with Richardson. Like someone said, JC might not come back as the same player and if JC can come back, then that's gonna be a killer 1-2 punch. Plus, we won't be getting a QB in the 1st so, if we want any offense next season, that's the best option.

How are you sure Richardson is going to be available at 11-12? If there are only 5 top tier talent prospects, who do teams 6-10 pick?

cdcox
01-10-2012, 12:42 AM
Scott Pioli is a legit believer in draft value, though he has broken with it before when he drafted Eric Berry. I don't think he breaks it two out of three years ...


I'm not a draftnik, but I have to ask what the hell are ou talking about here? Let's look at the whole Pioli record where he drafted Tyson Jackson. Jackson at 5-tech at the number 3 overall pick was a far worse "value pick" than Eric Berry, the best safety prospect in at least 5 years. To call Berry a "non-value pick" I'm just speechless. Jackson wasn't on anybody's radar until draft day and Berry was "the guy" every one wanted in September. Picking Berry was the ultimate value pick. As far as positional value, safety is at least as valuable as a 5-tech. The case that Pioli wants to make value picks is not disrupted in the least by taking Berry, but is devastated by taking Tyson Jackson.

Chocolate Hog
01-10-2012, 12:43 AM
I'd be cool with trading the pick for a 2nd rounder and a first next year.

HMc
01-10-2012, 12:48 AM
I'm not a draftnik, but I have to ask what the hell are ou talking about here? Let's look at the whole Pioli record where he drafted Tyson Jackson. Jackson at 5-tech at the number 3 overall pick was a far worse "value pick" than Eric Berry, the best safety prospect in at least 5 years. To call Berry a "non-value pick" I'm just speechless. Jackson wasn't on anybody's radar until draft day and Berry was "the guy" every one wanted in September. Picking Berry was the ultimate value pick. As far as positional value, safety is at least as valuable as a 5-tech. The case that Pioli wants to make value picks is not disrupted in the least by taking Berry, but is devastated by taking Tyson Jackson.

uh, this. most people here were worried that berry wouldn't be still available at #5, not that pioli reached by picking him.

OzarksChiefsFan
01-10-2012, 02:16 AM
I mostly agree with you. Richardson is a sexy pick but will be overvalued. There will be other RBs later in the draft as good or better. The only area where I think you might be mistaken is one of the tackles. Reif was a Ferentz guy and is probably NFL ready. Most OL take a few years to get the hang of the NFL game he might be the exception. People want to move Albert to G or RT but that's a pay cut from his current position and one he is not likely to accept.

I have no problem with them trading down and gaining some picks if they can get productive bigs in the later rounds. I could actually see them making a play for a Matt Flynn. I know everyone thinks Pioli is enamored with Cassel but he didn't get where he is by being stupid. I think he is very aware of the QB situation and if he has a chance to address it he will.

NJChiefsFan
01-10-2012, 02:33 AM
I know everyone thinks Pioli is enamored with Cassel but he didn't get where he is by being stupid. I think he is very aware of the QB situation and if he has a chance to address it he will.

I don't agree with you but I would love nothing more than to be wrong.

ChiefsNow
01-10-2012, 04:16 AM
We need a RB like Christian Okoye or John Alstott or the Bus to compliment JC.

BigRichard
01-10-2012, 04:56 AM
We need a RB like Christian Okoye or John Alstott or the Bus to compliment JC.

Exactly

dannybcaitlyn
01-10-2012, 05:20 AM
If Trent Richardson is there when we pick we should take him. Best running back in college.

bevischief
01-10-2012, 05:27 AM
Richardson is worthy of being a top 10 pick. If he's there when we pick, Pioli would be stupid not to consider him because...

- he'll probably be the best player available
- he'd be a great insurance policy if Jamaal isn't the same player after the ACL injury

Alshon Jeffrey is a beast of a receiver, but I don't see Pioli taking him since Bowe will be re-signed/franchised, and we just spent a 1st rounder on Baldwin last year.

I can see us going with a G or RT, even though it wouldn't be a great value unless we trade down. If we do go OL, we definitely need to trade down.

Richardson would help make Cassel look like a quarterback.

HMc
01-10-2012, 06:11 AM
I'd probably rather a stud OL (not sure what's available) than a stud RB, but until management formulates and executes a plan to acquire a genuine QB it's all fairly academic anyway.

Sfeihc
01-10-2012, 06:34 AM
You nailed it, D. Very well done.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 06:35 AM
Richardson would help make Cassel look like a quarterback.

Yeah because they'd have him throw the ball even less.

Taking Trent Richardson would set this franchise back at least 3 more years.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 06:36 AM
I'd probably rather a stud OL (not sure what's available) than a stud RB, but until management formulates and executes a plan to acquire a genuine QB it's all fairly academic anyway.

Yep.

Taking the stud RB just gives them an excuse to try and go with the dogshit we have at QB.

Marty Ball doesn't work anymore.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 06:36 AM
We need a RB like Christian Okoye or John Alstott or the Bus to compliment JC.

Because Christian Okoye won so many playoff games...

Pasta Giant Meatball
01-10-2012, 06:41 AM
We need a RB like Christian Okoye or John Alstott or the Bus to compliment JC.

I say this every damn year, but you don't need a "bruiser" to pick up short yardage. The team does need a back that can get the short yardage, but some of the best short yardage backs to ever play the game aren't lard buckets.

Micjones
01-10-2012, 06:43 AM
I wouldn't mind them trading back 3-4 spots, but I'm hoping for Tannehill or one of the Offensive Tackles.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 07:00 AM
I say this every damn year, but you don't need a "bruiser" to pick up short yardage. The team does need a back that can get the short yardage, but some of the best short yardage backs to ever play the game aren't lard buckets.

Marcus Allen...

Amnorix
01-10-2012, 07:01 AM
RB isn't necessarily worth a top 12 pick. The fact is that RBs in general just aren't as valuable as they were even 10-20 years ago.

That said, the Pats were ready to take Stephen Jackson in 2004 until Vince Wilfork slipped to them, and then took Laurence Maroney in the 20s in whatever woe-begotten year that was (2006 I think), so clearly BB (FWIW) is willing to spend a 1st on RB.

But with JC in the house already, and with ACL usually not ruining a career (see Welker, Wes), I'm not sure it's where the Chiefs need to focus their draft choice investments.

Pasta Giant Meatball
01-10-2012, 07:10 AM
Marcus Allen...

Priest, Ladainian Tomlinson, Shaun Alexander.

dannybcaitlyn
01-10-2012, 07:23 AM
RB isn't necessarily worth a top 12 pick. The fact is that RBs in general just aren't as valuable as they were even 10-20 years ago.

That said, the Pats were ready to take Stephen Jackson in 2004 until Vince Wilfork slipped to them, and then took Laurence Maroney in the 20s in whatever woe-begotten year that was (2006 I think), so clearly BB (FWIW) is willing to spend a 1st on RB.

But with JC in the house already, and with ACL usually not ruining a career (see Welker, Wes), I'm not sure it's where the Chiefs need to focus their draft choice investments.

The thing is JC hasn't shown or giving the opportunity that he can carry the rock 20 or 25 times a game. Plus our depth behind him is really crap. Richardson will be a stud. Yea we can get a back later but he could be maroney part 2. Grab and o-line in the second.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 07:30 AM
The thing is JC hasn't shown or giving the opportunity that he can carry the rock 20 or 25 times a game. Plus our depth behind him is really crap. Richardson will be a stud. Yea we can get a back later but he could be maroney part 2. Grab and o-line in the second.

Enough of a stud that they'll decide we don't need a QB. We can do like the Vikings and take our monster RB and continue to win 4-6 games a season until he's done.

suds79
01-10-2012, 07:33 AM
As much as I like Trent Richardson, RB is a position that can easily be found in the mid rounds to late.

Plus it's a position where your guy will likely be done in 5 years.

Can't invest a first in that.

Count Zarth
01-10-2012, 07:35 AM
Someone should look at SB RBs in the last 10 years and see how many were 1st round picks.

Extra Point
01-10-2012, 07:35 AM
Marcus Allen...

Dave Szott, Will Shields. Can't run if you can't block, but an excellent RB can make a big diff, as did Allen.

Richardson didn't impress me, until the TD dash. He had an excellent seal.

Wonder how Ingram will fare, in his healing up.

One thing about RB's: Allen was the exception to the rule, in his longevity.

The combine will tell us if Richardson will do well enough, that we can draft him.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 07:43 AM
Someone should look at SB RBs in the last 10 years and see how many were 1st round picks.

There's that factor but that's less of a concern to me.

My big fear is not taking a RB in the 1st, it's the CHIEFS taking a RB in the 1st.

Clark is about my age. The "peak" of his fandom was Okoye and Word, Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith.

I can TOTALLY see them taking Richardson and thinking that we can get by with a guy like Cassel for another 3-5 years. Continue to strengthen the defense, get another tackle, and run the ball 50 times a game. It's a recipe for exactly what Clark wants, a full stadium. Win 9, 10, 11 games a season. But it's not a recipe for winning in the playoffs.

Urc Burry
01-10-2012, 07:54 AM
Here is what i'm hoping for:
Resign all our FA's, and Carl Nicks

Trade down into the second round and get a second rounder this year and a 1st next..

Draft:
a combination of Poe and Burfict/Hightower, whichever one is a better fit at this point... and go RT in round 3

the Talking Can
01-10-2012, 07:55 AM
if we aren't moving up for a QB, then moving down makes sense...

there is RB value all over the draft

needs:

QB
....huge gap
RT/NT
C/RB#2/TE#2
ILB/backup safety

Renegade
01-10-2012, 07:58 AM
So if there is no value for us when pick in the first, what team would see value to trade upto our pick. I just don't see us finding a viable trade partner.

tredadda
01-10-2012, 08:03 AM
Yeah because they'd have him throw the ball even less.

Taking Trent Richardson would set this franchise back at least 3 more years.

How? We have given Cassel everything and yet he still sucks. If this team continues to be enamored with Cassel, we might as well make it so he has very little to actually do. If I felt this team actually valued the QB position or felt Cassel was garbage then I would be totally against the Richardson pick. Sadly though I think our horse is hitched with him, so we might as well make running it idiot proof for him. Getting Richardson does just that.

Zeke
01-10-2012, 08:06 AM
Someone should look at SB RBs in the last 10 years and see how many were 1st round picks.

Super Bowl XLV - Rashard Mendenhall (1st round pick), James Starks (6th round pick) replaced injured starter Brandon Jackson (2nd round pick)

Super Bowl XLIV - Pierre Thomas (Undrafted), Michael Bush (1st round), Joseph Addai (1st round), Donald Brown (1st round)

Super Bowl XLIII - Willie Parker (undrafted), Edgerrin James (1st round)

Super Bowl XLII - Ahmad Bradshaw (7th round), Brandon Jacobs (4th round), Laurence Maroney (1st round), Kevin Faulk (2nd round)

Super Bowl XLI - Joseph Addai (1st round), Dominic Rhodes (undrafted), Thomas Jones (1st round), Cedric Benson (1st round)

There's the last 5.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 08:08 AM
How? We have given Cassel everything and yet he still sucks. If this team continues to be enamored with Cassel, we might as well make it so he has very little to actually do. If I felt this team actually valued the QB position or felt Cassel was garbage then I would be totally against the Richardson pick. Sadly though I think our horse is hitched with him, so we might as well make running it idiot proof for him. Getting Richardson does just that.

So you're all in favor of putting lipstick on the pig?

We need Cassel to play as many snaps without a safety blanket as possible. Once the stadium is empty, he'll finally be gone.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 08:09 AM
Super Bowl XLV - Rashard Mendenhall (1st round pick), James Starks (6th round pick) replaced injured starter Brandon Jackson (2nd round pick)

Super Bowl XLIV - Pierre Thomas (Undrafted), Michael Bush (1st round), Joseph Addai (1st round), Donald Brown (1st round)

Super Bowl XLIII - Willie Parker (undrafted), Edgerrin James (1st round)

Super Bowl XLII - Ahmad Bradshaw (7th round), Brandon Jacobs (4th round), Laurence Maroney (1st round), Kevin Faulk (2nd round)

Super Bowl XLI - Joseph Addai (1st round), Dominic Rhodes (undrafted), Thomas Jones (1st round), Cedric Benson (1st round)

There's the last 5.

So basically Bush, James, Jones, and Benson were picked in the top of the 1st round.

tredadda
01-10-2012, 08:14 AM
Yep.

Taking the stud RB just gives them an excuse to try and go with the dogshit we have at QB.

Marty Ball doesn't work anymore.

What in the past 40+ year history of this franchise makes you think that QB is a priority for this organization? Since the team never has valued the position, nor does it appear that they ever will as long as a Hunt is in charge, why not go out and draft a play maker and hope we win with a good defense, solid running game and average at best QB?

tredadda
01-10-2012, 08:17 AM
So you're all in favor of putting lipstick on the pig?

We need Cassel to play as many snaps without a safety blanket as possible. Once the stadium is empty, he'll finally be gone.

Reread what I wrote. I would be AGAINST the Richardson pick if I felt QB was a priority for this team. It is not. I have been one of the biggest supporters of dropping Cassel and doing whatever it takes to trade up for Luck or RGIII. I am also a realist, and 40+ years of Chiefs history tells me that they will not address the QB situation in the 1st. They will try to win with a career backup or washed up vet like they have always tried to do. If Cassel fails, he will be replaced with some other back up, like Flynn or something. At least give whomever we throw under center as many play makers as possible to offset their crappiness.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 08:20 AM
What in the past 40+ year history of this franchise makes you think that QB is a priority for this organization? Since the team never has valued the position, nor does it appear that they ever will as long as a Hunt is in charge, why not go out and draft a play maker and hope we win with a good defense, solid running game and average at best QB?

Hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

If they can't see it, we need to do everything we can to MAKE him fail. His level of suck needs to slap Clark Hunt in the face and FORCE him to fire Pioli.

I'm tired of 8-8 years filled with heartbreak.

I'd rather lose 10 games a year for the next 10 if that's what it takes to push them to make the moves necessary.

Zeke
01-10-2012, 08:22 AM
So basically Bush, James, Jones, and Benson were picked in the top of the 1st round.

Some productive years between those 4, but none worth a top of the draft pick... RB's just have way too short of a shelf life to spend that type of value. We need a player that will be able to give more than 3 or 4 productive years drafted at the top of our draft.

With that being said, we'll probably get a DE like Melvin Ingram and try to convert him to OLB... or another goddamn TE.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 08:22 AM
Reread what I wrote. I would be AGAINST the Richardson pick if I felt QB was a priority for this team. It is not.

I read and understood fully what you wrote. The only way to get them to value the QB position is to completely crash and burn. Drafting Richardson VALIDATES their way of thinking. Why in the world would you want to do that?

dannybcaitlyn
01-10-2012, 08:59 AM
Hey im all for getting rid of castle, but if you have an elite potential pro bowl RB as in Richardson fall in our laps you take him.. The life span of running back is longer the way teams are using them now. The way we've been scouting and drafting rb's lately I wouldn't trust any choice but Richardson.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 09:02 AM
Hey im all for getting rid of castle, but if you have an elite potential pro bowl RB as in Richardson fall in our laps you take him.. The life span of running back is longer the way teams are using them now. The way we've been scouting and drafting rb's lately I wouldn't trust any choice but Richardson.

Sure, let's give them all of the pieces they need to prolong our misery as long as is humanly possible.

dannybcaitlyn
01-10-2012, 09:09 AM
Sure, let's give them all of the pieces they need to prolong our misery as long as is humanly possible.

Lol. I feel your pain.

Micjones
01-10-2012, 09:15 AM
As much as I like Trent Richardson, RB is a position that can easily be found in the mid rounds to late.

Plus it's a position where your guy will likely be done in 5 years.

Can't invest a first in that.

Agreed.
I'd love to have him, but you just can't go there unless you're a team with few holes.
As anticlimactic as it'll be...give me an Offensive Tackle there.

jd1020
01-10-2012, 09:25 AM
So if there is no value for us when pick in the first, what team would see value to trade upto our pick. I just don't see us finding a viable trade partner.

IF Trent Richardson is still on the board when we pick I could see Cleveland as a possible suiter for a trade down. I'm not sure when their 2nd first is but its in the 20-24 range (Falcons pick). I would draft Dontari Poe with that pick while grabbing whatever extra picks we could get from them. I would think they would give up a bit if they were interested. They've severed ties with Hillis and just imagine if they got both RG3 and Richardson.

There are a few mid-late round prospect RB's that I wouldn't mind seeing, like...

Robert Turbin
Vick Ballard
Tauren Poole

Monty
01-10-2012, 09:41 AM
Take Richardson. With him and JC in the backfield, the Chiefs can run the draw up the middle with McCluster. The other team will never see it coming...Brilliant!!

Pestilence
01-10-2012, 09:45 AM
So if there is no value for us when pick in the first, what team would see value to trade upto our pick. I just don't see us finding a viable trade partner.

Jets
Bengals
Browns

Urc Burry
01-10-2012, 09:51 AM
IF Trent Richardson is still on the board when we pick I could see Cleveland as a possible suiter for a trade down. I'm not sure when their 2nd first is but its in the 20-24 range (Falcons pick). I would draft Dontari Poe with that pick while grabbing whatever extra picks we could get from them. I would think they would give up a bit if they were interested. They've severed ties with Hillis and just imagine if they got both RG3 and Richardson.

There are a few mid-late round prospect RB's that I wouldn't mind seeing, like...

Robert Turbin
Vick Ballard
Tauren Poole

Would they give up their next years 1st? Because there is a pretty good chance that that would be a top 10 pick :drool:

O.city
01-10-2012, 09:55 AM
I wouldn't mind taking the RB from Washington. Polk I think, if he is around later in the draft.

Frankie
01-10-2012, 11:04 AM
Normally I do not advocate this stuff, because I am usually not a fan of trading down in the first round.

Scott Pioli is a legit believer in draft value,.....

It also seems to eliminate right tackle......

That leaves me to believe the Chiefs will almost certainly try to trade down until they get a tackle or one of the lesser valued positions (ILB, RB, NT) at a much better value.

I love trade downs in some years, staying pat or trade ups in others. This year, I say trade down. My favorite scenario is to see us trade down to about 18 and still get a guy like Tannehill (plus extra picks). Then in the 2nd, I would take Kelechi Osemele and convert him to RT.

Chocolate Hog
01-10-2012, 11:07 AM
Agreed.
I'd love to have him, but you just can't go there unless you're a team with few holes.
As anticlimactic as it'll be...give me an Offensive Tackle there.

So take a right tackle which you can get in the 4th round over a gamer changer? That doesn't make sense.

Chocolate Hog
01-10-2012, 11:08 AM
Someone should look at SB RBs in the last 10 years and see how many were 1st round picks.

Really doesn't matter.

Hydrae
01-10-2012, 11:20 AM
I like the idea mentioned of us trading back into the second round and picking up an extra 1st for next year. We all know we are not drafting a 1st round QB this year but perhaps it would set us up to package the two first round picks to get to the top of the draft next year for someone like Barkley.

Detoxing
01-10-2012, 11:23 AM
As much as I like Trent Richardson, RB is a position that can easily be found in the mid rounds to late.

Plus it's a position where your guy will likely be done in 5 years.

Can't invest a first in that.

Kind of tired of seeing people spout this over and over again. Yes, Good backs can be found in later rounds.

ELITE backs...not so much.

Trent Richardson is an Elite back.

He is an Elite talent and the Chiefs would be retarded not to pick him there. The guy is instant offense, similar to the way Berry was instant Defense.

If Orton is re-signed, having a tandem of backs like JC and Richardson would allow a guy like Orton (who uses the Play Action very effectivly) to open up the passing game.

This whole theory that taking an elite back will set this franchise back is full of holes.

What if Cassel or Orton goes down and Stanzi/Rookie Qb have to start? Having a pair of backs like that will make their job a Lot easier.

Chocolate Hog
01-10-2012, 11:25 AM
Kind of tired of seeing people spout this over and over again. Yes, Good backs can be found in later rounds.

ELITE backs...not so much.

Trent Richardson is an Elite back.

He is an Elite talent and the Chiefs would be retarded not to pick him there. The guy is instant offense, similar to the way Berry was instant Defense.

If Orton is re-signed, having a tandem of backs like JC and Richardson would allow a guy like Orton (who uses the Play Action very effectivly) to open up the passing game.

This whole theory that taking an elite back will set this franchise back is full of holes.

What if Cassel or Orton goes down and Stanzi/Rookie Qb have to start? Having a pair of backs like that will make their job a Lot easier.

Great post.

If Richardson can beast in the red zone then Orton becomes a much better QB.

Frosty
01-10-2012, 11:27 AM
Kind of tired of seeing people spout this over and over again. Yes, Good backs can be found in later rounds.

ELITE backs...not so much.

Trent Richardson is an Elite back.

He is an Elite talent and the Chiefs would be retarded not to pick him there. The guy is instant offense, similar to the way Berry was instant Defense.

If Orton is re-signed, having a tandem of backs like JC and Richardson would allow a guy like Orton (who uses the Play Action very effectivly) to open up the passing game.

This whole theory that taking an elite back will set this franchise back is full of holes.

What if Cassel or Orton goes down and Stanzi/Rookie Qb have to start? Having a pair of backs like that will make their job a Lot easier.


Excellent. With the new slotting system, you aren't paying eleventy-billion dollars for them, either.

Frankie
01-10-2012, 11:33 AM
I like the idea mentioned of us trading back into the second round and picking up an extra 1st for next year. We all know we are not drafting a 1st round QB this year but perhaps it would set us up to package the two first round picks to get to the top of the draft next year for someone like Barkley.

:hmmm:

Demonpenz
01-10-2012, 11:39 AM
I would love to have a good running back, with the way arrowhead is with the field and all we could play defense run the ball and win lots of games.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 11:39 AM
Having a pair of backs like that will make their job a Lot easier.

A lot easier to win 8-9 games a year, fill the stadium, and never have to hassle with finding a real QB.

Yep, that sounds like a great plan.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 11:40 AM
I would love to have a good running back, with the way arrowhead is with the field and all we could play defense run the ball and win lots of games.

Exactly. Regular season wins FTW!

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 11:41 AM
So take a right tackle which you can get in the 4th round over a gamer changer? That doesn't make sense.

A right tackle doesn't dictate offensive philosophy. A RB like Richardson does.

Ask the Vikings how much they're enjoying the playoffs. Or ask the Jags.

Bowser
01-10-2012, 11:46 AM
We're fucked if we do, and fucked if we don't.

prhom
01-10-2012, 05:37 PM
So if there is no value for us when pick in the first, what team would see value to trade upto our pick. I just don't see us finding a viable trade partner.

My thoughts exactly. Same thing happened when we took Tyson Jackson at #3. No one liked the pick but couldn't think of anyone to pick with better value. No one seemed to want to trade us for that pick either.

Detoxing
01-10-2012, 05:40 PM
A lot easier to win 8-9 games a year, fill the stadium, and never have to hassle with finding a real QB.

Yep, that sounds like a great plan.

You seem to think finding a QB can't coexist with loading up on elite talent. I disagree. Cassel will shit his pants no matter what. When they lost to Baltimore they identified the passing game as the main weakness. they addressed the receiver position. If the passing game continues to not work, there is only one more answer. There won't be any denying that a QB is needed. They've used up all their scapegoats already.

1. WR. Check

2. HC. Check

3. OC. Check

4. HB. Check

What's left?

Let me ask you this, would you prefer a new RT for our new QB next year, or a stud RB?

prhom
01-10-2012, 05:43 PM
Kind of tired of seeing people spout this over and over again. Yes, Good backs can be found in later rounds.

ELITE backs...not so much.

Trent Richardson is an Elite back.

He is an Elite talent and the Chiefs would be retarded not to pick him there. The guy is instant offense, similar to the way Berry was instant Defense.

If Orton is re-signed, having a tandem of backs like JC and Richardson would allow a guy like Orton (who uses the Play Action very effectivly) to open up the passing game.

This whole theory that taking an elite back will set this franchise back is full of holes.

What if Cassel or Orton goes down and Stanzi/Rookie Qb have to start? Having a pair of backs like that will make their job a Lot easier.

The only thing worse than passing on a QB would be reaching for a qb that we could get in the second.

That said I'd love to have another great RB to go with Charles. This season is a good example of why you need to have a tandem of RBs. Charles may or may not be the same as before after he recovers. We drafted LJ when Priest was healthy and it seemed strange but then when we needed LJ he was ready to go. Whether or not drafting Richardson will keep us from getting a QB I don't know but I would rather draft a talent with our first pick than trade down for a couple extra bodies.

CaliforniaChief
01-10-2012, 05:49 PM
If we can't move up and grab RG3, then I'd love Richardson. Detoxing made all the points...but a Charles/Richardson/McCluster combination would just be SICK.

Detoxing
01-10-2012, 05:49 PM
The only thing worse than passing on a QB would be reaching for a qb that we could get in the second.

That said I'd love to have another great RB to go with Charles. This season is a good example of why you need to have a tandem of RBs. Charles may or may not be the same as before after he recovers. We drafted LJ when Priest was healthy and it seemed strange but then when we needed LJ he was ready to go. Whether or not drafting Richardson will keep us from getting a QB I don't know but I would rather draft a talent with our first pick than trade down for a couple extra bodies.

The only thing drafting a RB SHOULD do is keep us from drafting another RB.

I understand what htis is saying and where he is finding his logic, but I don't think we should pass on a great player "just in case" Pioli doesn't realize we need a QB.

HMc
01-10-2012, 05:52 PM
I'm amazed how quickly planeteers that claim to want to strip the cupboard bare and build the team properly are suddenly in love with a running back because it will give us a great 1-2 punch with JC.

Fuck me, how many downs do you think we're going to have to exploit this fabulous combo without a QB?

Larry Johnson was the best thing since Jim Brown when he was here because he had a bit of bulk about him and ran through people (on occasion). We got two good seasons out of him and now he's out of the league.

Even IF Richardson is the second coming and we have the best RBBC in the league, how does that help us win games in the NFL? You can count on RBs giving you about three excellent years these days before they pop a knee ligament of just become worn out.

By the time any QB we get is good enough to let us compete, thie Richardson will either be busted, or will have pissed of to NYC or Washington for crazy money.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 06:00 PM
You seem to think finding a QB can't coexist with loading up on elite talent.

Wrong. Finding a QB absolutely CAN coexist with loading up on elite talent, even at RB.

I'm not saying it can't coexist, I'm saying it WON'T coexist. This isn't Baltimore. This is Kansas City.

Let me ask you this, would you prefer a new RT for our new QB next year, or a stud RB?

Yes, I actually would. You don't build an offense around a RT and even an elite RT isn't good enough to mask our QB deficiencies completely. Another RB the caliber of Charles absolutely is. How do I know? Because Charles' injury is usually listed as the #1 reason Cassel wasn't any good again this year.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 06:00 PM
If we can't move up and grab RG3, then I'd love Richardson. Detoxing made all the points...but a Charles/Richardson/McCluster combination would just be SICK.

Yeah, I know all those 9-win seasons with no playoff wins would certainly make me sick...

Detoxing
01-10-2012, 06:01 PM
I'm amazed how quickly planeteers that claim to want to strip the cupboard bare and build the team properly are suddenly in love with a running back because it will give us a great 1-2 punch with JC.

**** me, how many downs do you think we're going to have to exploit this fabulous combo without a QB?

Larry Johnson was the best thing since Jim Brown when he was here because he had a bit of bulk about him and ran through people (on occasion). We got two good seasons out of him and now he's out of the league.

Even IF Richardson is the second coming and we have the best RBBC in the league, how does that help us win games in the NFL? You can count on RBs giving you about three excellent years these days before they pop a knee ligament of just become worn out.

By the time any QB we get is good enough to let us compete, thie Richardson will either be busted, or will have pissed of to NYC or Washington for crazy money.

No one is saying we want a RB over a QB smart guy. But unless they trade UP, there won't be one there worth taking.

This isn't a debate over RB VS QB. This is a debate about RB vs wtf is left on the board. And saying a RB is going to give you only three years is retarded. Pretty sure RB's die off around age 30, not age 23.

HMc
01-10-2012, 06:02 PM
If we can get someone to anchor a position in the OL (and not be crap at it) for the best part of the next decade, then I would happily spend the 12th pick on that guy.

Detoxing
01-10-2012, 06:04 PM
Wrong. Finding a QB absolutely CAN coexist with loading up on elite talent, even at RB.

I'm not saying it can't coexist, I'm saying it WON'T coexist. This isn't Baltimore. This is Kansas City.



Yes, I actually would. You don't build an offense around a RT and even an elite RT isn't good enough to mask our QB deficiencies completely. Another RB the caliber of Charles absolutely is. How do I know? Because Charles' injury is usually listed as the #1 reason Cassel wasn't any good again this year.

I know what you mean, i just don't agree. I would rather the Chiefs take the BPA and as Romeo likes to say, "Let the chips fall where they may".

I, unlike you, don't feel like any running game will mask Cassel.

Cassel was a huge liability even when Charles was running hard in '10.

htismaqe
01-10-2012, 06:05 PM
I know what you mean, i just don't agree. I would rather the Chiefs take the BPA and as Romeo likes to say, "Let the chips fall where they may".

I, unlike you, don't feel like any running game will mask Cassel.

Cassel was a huge liability even when Charles was running hard in '10.

"Cassel has won here. Cassel took us to the playoffs." - Romeo Crennel

HMc
01-10-2012, 06:09 PM
No one is saying we want a RB over a QB smart guy. But unless they trade UP, there won't be one there worth taking.

This isn't a debate over RB VS QB. This is a debate about RB vs wtf is left on the board. And saying a RB is going to give you only three years is retarded. Pretty sure RB's die off around age 30, not age 23.

Did I say the only other option was taking a QB? No.

prhom
01-10-2012, 06:24 PM
If we can get someone to anchor a position in the OL (and not be crap at it) for the best part of the next decade, then I would happily spend the 12th pick on that guy.

Not going to disagree here and I'll admit I don't know a lot about the prospects for o line guys in this draft. But I don't want to see us take a guy who is a late first or early second guy at 12 just because an elite RB is only going to play for three years and we could get 10 years of play out of a decent o-lineman.

HMc
01-10-2012, 06:34 PM
What about either of:

JONATHAN MARTIN, OT, STANFORD
RILEY REIFF, OT, IOWA

They're projected to go in the first aren't they?<!-- .playerHead --><!-- .playerHead -->

Valiant
01-10-2012, 07:02 PM
Richardson would help make Cassel look like a quarterback.

Please, that piece of shit cant even do a simple play action.. Other teams would just stuff the box and make Castle try and beat them.. Does that sound like a team you want to watch??

Direckshun
01-10-2012, 07:05 PM
What about either of:

JONATHAN MARTIN, OT, STANFORD
RILEY REIFF, OT, IOWA

They're projected to go in the first aren't they?<!-- .playerHead --><!-- .playerHead -->

They are.

They're both right tackle selections, however. I think Pioli wants more bang for his buck here.

HMc
01-10-2012, 07:08 PM
What does that even mean?

NJChiefsFan
01-10-2012, 08:38 PM
"Cassel has won here. Cassel took us to the playoffs." - Romeo Crennel

I think if you listen to the presser and the radio interview on 810 it makes you think that if he answered honestly, Crennel would much rather have Orton. He even said that if Orton was here there would be a QB issue.

Its scary to hear a Chief coach defend Cassel out load, but I think Crennel is all for a new QB if Pioli is willing to do it.

morphius
01-10-2012, 08:43 PM
I think if you listen to the presser and the radio interview on 810 it makes you think that if he answered honestly, Crennel would much rather have Orton. He even said that if Orton was here there would be a QB issue.

Its scary to hear a Chief coach defend Cassel out load, but I think Crennel is all for a new QB if Pioli is willing to do it.
That, and if you want to trade him, even for a late pick, you can't destroy the guy.

NJChiefsFan
01-10-2012, 08:49 PM
That, and if you want to trade him, even for a late pick, you can't destroy the guy.

Thats also true, although honestly for my own piece of mind, I would rather hear them rip him and promise me he is gone than be tortured for months to get a late pick.

morphius
01-10-2012, 09:41 PM
Thats also true, although honestly for my own piece of mind, I would rather hear them rip him and promise me he is gone than be tortured for months to get a late pick.
lol, sorry, as Chiefs fans we are meant to suffer. You should be used to it by now.

Frankie
01-10-2012, 09:47 PM
The only thing worse than passing on a QB would be reaching for a qb that we could get in the second.

That said I'd love to have another great RB to go with Charles. This season is a good example of why you need to have a tandem of RBs. Charles may or may not be the same as before after he recovers. We drafted LJ when Priest was healthy and it seemed strange but then when we needed LJ he was ready to go. Whether or not drafting Richardson will keep us from getting a QB I don't know but I would rather draft a talent with our first pick than trade down for a couple extra bodies.

If we can't move up and grab RG3, then I'd love Richardson. Detoxing made all the points...but a Charles/Richardson/McCluster combination would just be SICK.

I'm amazed how quickly planeteers that claim to want to strip the cupboard bare and build the team properly are suddenly in love with a running back because it will give us a great 1-2 punch with JC.

**** me, how many downs do you think we're going to have to exploit this fabulous combo without a QB?

Larry Johnson was the best thing since Jim Brown when he was here because he had a bit of bulk about him and ran through people (on occasion). We got two good seasons out of him and now he's out of the league.

Even IF Richardson is the second coming and we have the best RBBC in the league, how does that help us win games in the NFL? You can count on RBs giving you about three excellent years these days before they pop a knee ligament of just become worn out.

By the time any QB we get is good enough to let us compete, thie Richardson will either be busted, or will have pissed of to NYC or Washington for crazy money.

I'm not at all cool with this new "let's get an elite RB in the first" poster fad. We HAVE an elite RB. He needs a backup/reliever, not an equal. Historically teams find good RBs in the 3 or 4 and we have too many actual gaping holes to use our 1st as a luxury pick.

Frankie
01-10-2012, 09:51 PM
They're both right tackle selections, however. I think Pioli wants more bang for his buck here.

Like he did with the 3rd pick 3 years ago.

BossChief
01-10-2012, 09:59 PM
Richardson sure would help Stanzi look good after about game 6 or 7 when Cassel gets pulled.

Chocolate Hog
01-10-2012, 10:08 PM
A right tackle doesn't dictate offensive philosophy. A RB like Richardson does.

Ask the Vikings how much they're enjoying the playoffs. Or ask the Jags.

Huh?

NJChiefsFan
01-10-2012, 10:24 PM
lol, sorry, as Chiefs fans we are meant to suffer. You should be used to it by now.

Yeah haha. I am used to the feeling.

Setsuna
01-10-2012, 10:27 PM
htidmaqe.....it seems like everyone else knows what they're talking about but you. You seem to like to argue and that's it. I think a power RB would do wonders for the Chiefs. Having a good running game can cover up a not so stellar OL when a PA pass only takes about 3 sec to pull off, they can at least hold that long. I like that idea a lot. The goal is to try and find depth so something like this year's injuries doesn't decimate the team as much.

tyler360
01-10-2012, 10:54 PM
htidmaqe.....it seems like everyone else knows what they're talking about but you. You seem to like to argue and that's it. I think a power RB would do wonders for the Chiefs. Having a good running game can cover up a not so stellar OL when a PA pass only takes about 3 sec to pull off, they can at least hold that long. I like that idea a lot. The goal is to try and find depth so something like this year's injuries doesn't decimate the team as much.

I agree with what you are saying.

I think what H is after is the fact that he would be a band aid on a broken leg. Just a cover up to the real problem of a qb and not having one.

Cassel did not have to win games last year, and it would be very tempting to do the whole ground and pound approach with defense again.

It would win us quite a few games but we have all seen what happens against a real qb. We lose.

That is what he is worrying about more than the player I think.

BigChiefFan
01-10-2012, 11:03 PM
We need to trade UP and get the best QB prospect in the draft.


It's not going to ham-string our team long-term.

Grow a set of balls and quit justifying just going through the motions.

40 years of nothing-40 years of zero franchise QBs...this is a no-brainer, folks.

aturnis
01-10-2012, 11:13 PM
I'm not at all cool with this new "let's get an elite RB in the first" poster fad. We HAVE an elite RB. He needs a backup/reliever, not an equal. Historically teams find good RBs in the 3 or 4 and we have too many actual gaping holes to use our 1st as a luxury pick.

How do you feel about the "luxury" pick of Eric Berry #5?

aturnis
01-10-2012, 11:18 PM
We need to trade UP and get the best QB prospect in the draft.


It's not going to ham-string our team long-term.

Grow a set of balls and quit justifying just going through the motions.

40 years of nothing-40 years of zero franchise QBs...this is a no-brainer, folks.

Will not happen. Pioli Might trade up for Luck, but Luck won't be available. IF someone is willing to auction their pick for RG3 away, it would cost WAY too much, and Pioli wouldn't pull the trigger for RG3. His boom/bust factor is too high for that kind of investment.

So, at 11/12, no QB's available, who do you pick?

Frankie
01-10-2012, 11:25 PM
How do you feel about the "luxury" pick of Eric Berry #5?

We had a need at safety. Not a luxury pick.

Frankie
01-10-2012, 11:29 PM
My crystal balls say that someone in love with Richardson will trade down with us when he is available when we pick. We get at least an extra 3 out of the trade and move down to get Tannehill/Wilson at value.

The first part comes through less fuzzy than the second part of course.

aturnis
01-10-2012, 11:32 PM
We had a need at safety. Not a luxury pick.

We have a need for RB. Jamaal cannot carry the load.

aturnis
01-10-2012, 11:35 PM
My crystal balls say that someone in love with Richardson will trade down with us when he is available when we pick. We get at least an extra 3 out of the trade and move down to get Tannehill/Wilson at value.

The first part comes through less fuzzy than the second part of course.

Don't think Pioli would fall in love with Tannehill. He'd probably just take a guy later and develop him along with Stanzi. Tannehill offers nothing more than Stanzi.

Rausch
01-10-2012, 11:48 PM
We have a need for RB. Jamaal cannot carry the load.

He doesn't have to.

We need to resign McClain, Dump 2Yrd Thomas, keep Battle, and draft another "banger" in the later (4-7) rounds.

That will give us our 5-7 touches a game to McCluster, 12-15 to Charles, and short yardage/4th quarter stuff to Battle and the draft pick...

Frankie
01-10-2012, 11:48 PM
Don't think Pioli would fall in love with Tannehill. He'd probably just take a guy later and develop him along with Stanzi. Tannehill offers nothing more than Stanzi.

Actually with Tannehill's foot injury his stock might drop. Who knows maybe it's bad enough that he'd be eligible for the traditional Pioli late QB pick.


He doesn't have to.

We need to resign McClain, Dump 2Yrd Thomas, keep Battle, and draft another "banger" in the later (4-7) rounds.

That will give us our 5-7 touches a game to McCluster, 12-15 to Charles, and short yardage/4th quarter stuff to Battle and the draft pick...Something like this is what I meant.

no love
01-11-2012, 12:01 AM
whole thing is moot. Tyson Jackson as the #3 overall? He wouldn't "break draft value 2 out of 3 years." Well sir, I believe he already has.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 07:02 AM
We need to trade UP and get the best QB prospect in the draft.


It's not going to ham-string our team long-term.

Grow a set of balls and quit justifying just going through the motions.

40 years of nothing-40 years of zero franchise QBs...this is a no-brainer, folks.

Trading up for a QB who subsequently busts will only set us back for the length of time he's here. Matt Cassel's CONTRACT didn't hurt us, his PLAY did. And once he's gone, there won't be any residual effect.

However, if we draft Trent Richardson, you can bet your ass it will set this franchise back. Visions of Okoye and Word, 3 yards and a cloud of dust - Clark would have us back to 1991 in about 2 minutes. And it would take 10 years to dig out of it.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 07:04 AM
htidmaqe.....it seems like everyone else knows what they're talking about but you. You seem to like to argue and that's it. I think a power RB would do wonders for the Chiefs. Having a good running game can cover up a not so stellar OL when a PA pass only takes about 3 sec to pull off, they can at least hold that long. I like that idea a lot. The goal is to try and find depth so something like this year's injuries doesn't decimate the team as much.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Trent Richardson is a curtain - it all looks good up front but what's behind him still STINKS.

If you like going 10-6 and losing in the playoffs every year, by all means, draft him.

I'd prefer to see a Super Bowl in my lifetime.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 07:05 AM
I agree with what you are saying.

I think what H is after is the fact that he would be a band aid on a broken leg. Just a cover up to the real problem of a qb and not having one.

Cassel did not have to win games last year, and it would be very tempting to do the whole ground and pound approach with defense again.

It would win us quite a few games but we have all seen what happens against a real qb. We lose.

That is what he is worrying about more than the player I think.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 09:24 AM
I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Trent Richardson is a curtain - it all looks good up front but what's behind him still STINKS.

If you like going 10-6 and losing in the playoffs every year, by all means, draft him.

I'd prefer to see a Super Bowl in my lifetime.

Ok man. Let's just say, Chiefs D is stout as hell. Receivers are leet. You have a sick 2 RB tandem and you have a serviceable QB that limits TO. How is that not a recipe for a Superbowl or a deep playoff team? Don't make me laugh.

And don't even think I'm calling Cassel serviceable.

Pasta Giant Meatball
01-11-2012, 09:31 AM
Trading up for a QB who subsequently busts will only set us back for the length of time he's here. Matt Cassel's CONTRACT didn't hurt us, his PLAY did. And once he's gone, there won't be any residual effect.

However, if we draft Trent Richardson, you can bet your ass it will set this franchise back. Visions of Okoye and Word, 3 yards and a cloud of dust - Clark would have us back to 1991 in about 2 minutes. And it would take 10 years to dig out of it.

I agree with ya, except with Richardson and Charles it would be 5 yards and a cloud of dust :thumb:

the Talking Can
01-11-2012, 09:44 AM
Ok man. Let's just say, Chiefs D is stout as hell. Receivers are leet. You have a sick 2 RB tandem and you have a serviceable QB that limits TO. How is that not a recipe for a Superbowl or a deep playoff team? Don't make me laugh.

And don't even think I'm calling Cassel serviceable.

because Superbowls are won by great QBs, not serviceable QBs....

I can't even believe I'm reading this from a Chiefs fan...is this Carl?

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 09:51 AM
because Superbowls are won by great QBs, not serviceable QBs....

I can't even believe I'm reading this from a Chiefs fan...is this Carl?

I think Chiefs have the swag necessary to win a SB without an elite QB. You need to recognize and not be retarded.

ChiefsCountry
01-11-2012, 09:52 AM
I think Chiefs have the swag necessary to win a SB without an elite QB. You need to recognize and not be retarded.

You are fucking stupid, we have been down this road more times than you have been alive.

the Talking Can
01-11-2012, 09:54 AM
I think Chiefs have the swag necessary to win a SB without an elite QB. You need to recognize and not be retarded.

jesus true fan christ....

hilarious....ly stupid shit

ChiefsCountry
01-11-2012, 09:56 AM
jesus true fan christ....

hilarious....ly stupid shit

He is a Jaguar and Tebow lover.

GordonGekko
01-11-2012, 09:56 AM
I miss voyager and his entire draft of bigXII picks that he would have the Chiefs making.

loochy
01-11-2012, 09:58 AM
we have been down this road more times than you have been alive.

Well, unless he's Jesus and was resurrected from the dead, he's only been alive once. So you've been down this road at least once, which really isn't a whole lot of times.

Reaper16
01-11-2012, 09:58 AM
As far as the OP goes, you underestimate how much Dre Kirkpatrick is an insane man who doesn't really play a very good CB. He gets by on his incredible athleticism but finds himself out of position a lot.

Chocolate Hog
01-11-2012, 09:59 AM
As far as the OP goes, you underestimate how much Dre Kirkpatrick is an insane man who doesn't really play a very good CB. He gets by on his incredible athleticism but finds himself out of position a lot.

Kareem Jackson says hey.

GordonGekko
01-11-2012, 09:59 AM
I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Trent Richardson is a curtain - it all looks good up front but what's behind him still STINKS.

If you like going 10-6 and losing in the playoffs every year, by all means, draft him.

I'd prefer to see a Super Bowl in my lifetime.

Shit, I'd take 10-6 every year, and you know making the playoffs that many times in a row you'd luck the f*ck out eventually and win the SB. It is a numbers game *moneyball.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 09:59 AM
because Superbowls are won by great QBs, not serviceable QBs....

I can't even believe I'm reading this from a Chiefs fan...is this Carl?

Yeah. But this is about drafting a RB, not about whether or not we're drafting a QB.

QB is the obvious answer.

But passing up one of the best talents in the draft because our QB isn't there is not how you build a talented team.

talastan
01-11-2012, 10:00 AM
I think Chiefs have the swag necessary to win a SB without an elite QB. You need to recognize and not be retarded.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4gQh9s2hzh1PD4xPHTyknwbW8sTQHZ6wQVS6PtnNumo_zi8niS-6T7-Z9_A

the Talking Can
01-11-2012, 10:04 AM
Yeah. But this is about drafting a RB, not about whether or not we're drafting a QB.

QB is the obvious answer.

But passing up one of the best talents in the draft because our QB isn't there is not how you build a talented team.

i was responding to his post...the claim you win a superbowl with a jagoff QB and a bunch of great RBs is demonstrably false...

and we already have an Elite RB...not sure why people claim we need one...do we need two? in my opinion, no...

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 10:15 AM
i was responding to his post...the claim you win a superbowl with a jagoff QB and a bunch of great RBs is demonstrably false...

and we already have an Elite RB...not sure why people claim we need one...do we need two? in my opinion, no...

Because there is a ton of uncertainty surrounding our elite back. He's not built to handle 350+ carries. Doing so will drive JC into the ground.

That's even if his surgically repaired knee survives his first season back.

I guess i'm one of the few people who doesn't want to hinge our running game on a bum knee and Jackie Battle.

Zeke
01-11-2012, 10:26 AM
Yeah. But this is about drafting a RB, not about whether or not we're drafting a QB.

QB is the obvious answer.

But passing up one of the best talents in the draft because our QB isn't there is not how you build a talented team.

No it's about failing hard now so that we have as many chances to draft that franchise qb as it takes in the future.

Personally, I don't like the idea of taking a RB that high in the draft. Though, if he's the best player there at #11, you take him. Or try to trade out and get more picks. But throwing your hands up and complaining furiously about drafting someone with talent because it keeps us from getting a QB in the future is ridiculous.

MahiMike
01-11-2012, 10:35 AM
I've been seeing Richardson as high as top 5 in a lot of mocks. He didn't necessarily impress me as much as I'd hoped in BCS championship game.

Decastro is versatile at either guard spot or RT. Take the boring pick and move on.

Reaper16
01-11-2012, 10:38 AM
I've been seeing Richardson as high as top 5 in a lot of mocks. He didn't necessarily impress me as much as I'd hoped in BCS championship game.

He got 96 yards and a TD against the 2nd best defense in the country, a defense who were treating the box like it was a clown car on account of how many guys were stacked in it. How was that not impressive?

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 10:39 AM
Alright you fools. So we won't get an elite QB, bank on that you spaztastic idiots. Let's get an OL 11th overall, and watch him battle injuries like Okung and that dude on the Skins. Wasted pick. Oh and what team lately has won without an elite two RB tandem? If no draft day moves and Richardson is there, you get him or suffer under .500 seasons forever.

saphojunkie
01-11-2012, 11:31 AM
Kind of tired of seeing people spout this over and over again. Yes, Good backs can be found in later rounds.

ELITE backs...not so much.

Trent Richardson is an Elite back.

He is an Elite talent and the Chiefs would be retarded not to pick him there. The guy is instant offense, similar to the way Berry was instant Defense.

If Orton is re-signed, having a tandem of backs like JC and Richardson would allow a guy like Orton (who uses the Play Action very effectivly) to open up the passing game.

This whole theory that taking an elite back will set this franchise back is full of holes.

What if Cassel or Orton goes down and Stanzi/Rookie Qb have to start? Having a pair of backs like that will make their job a Lot easier.

Your top 10 running backs for this year:

1. Maurice Jones-Drew - 2nd Round
2. Arian Foster - undrafted
3. Fred Jackson - undrafted, invited to training camp after 2 years in a semi-pro league
4. Darren McFadden - 1st round (injured on IR)
5. LeSean McCoy - 2nd round
6. Ray Rice - 2nd round
7. Michael Turner - 5th round
8. Matt Forte - 2nd round
9. Adrian Peterson - 1st round (injured on IR)
10. Marshawn Lynch - 1st round

Others of note:

Jamaal Charles - 3rd round
Frank Gore - 3rd round
Demarco Murray - 3rd round
Priest Holmes - undrafted
Terrel Davis - 6th round
Legarette Blount - undrafted


Your theory makes no sense, especially considering the fact that WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN ELITE RB ON OUR ROSTER DRAFTED IN THE 3RD ROUND.

if anything, there is zero doubt that the type of RB we need is the exact kind you can draft in later rounds.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 11:34 AM
Your top 10 running backs for this year:

1. Maurice Jones-Drew - 2nd Round
2. Arian Foster - undrafted
3. Fred Jackson - undrafted, invited to training camp after 2 years in a semi-pro league
4. Darren McFadden - 1st round (injured on IR)
5. LeSean McCoy - 2nd round
6. Ray Rice - 2nd round
7. Michael Turner - 5th round
8. Matt Forte - 2nd round
9. Adrian Peterson - 1st round (injured on IR)
10. Marshawn Lynch - 1st round

Others of note:

Jamaal Charles - 3rd round
Frank Gore - 3rd round
Demarco Murray - 3rd round
Priest Holmes - undrafted
Terrel Davis - 6th round
Legarette Blount - undrafted


Your theory makes no sense, especially considering the fact that WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN ELITE RB ON OUR ROSTER DRAFTED IN THE 3RD ROUND.

if anything, there is zero doubt that the type of RB we need is the exact kind you can draft in later rounds.

Ok. So 7 of your top 10 backs were taken in the first two rounds. Not rounds 4-7.

Got it. Thanks.

Oh, and our Elite RB, is coming off of an ACL surgery and has never been a workhorse. If you want to be unbiased, then present all the facts.

the Talking Can
01-11-2012, 11:35 AM
Alright you fools. So we won't get an elite QB, bank on that you spaztastic idiots. Let's get an OL 11th overall, and watch him battle injuries like Okung and that dude on the Skins. Wasted pick. Oh and what team lately has won without an elite two RB tandem? If no draft day moves and Richardson is there, you get him or suffer under .500 seasons forever.

we already have an elite RB you moron

and no superbowl team in memory has had 2 'elite' backs...

Frosty
01-11-2012, 11:36 AM
Ok. So 7 of your top 10 backs were taken in the first two rounds. Not rounds 4-7.

Got it. Thanks.

Blount was widely regarded as a 1st round pick until the punching incident.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 11:38 AM
we already have an elite RB you moron

and no superbowl team in memory has had 2 'elite' backs...

You think JC's knee is going last 350+ carries? You wanna bet your running game on it?

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 11:38 AM
Shit, I'd take 10-6 every year, and you know making the playoffs that many times in a row you'd luck the f*ck out eventually and win the SB. It is a numbers game *moneyball.

That worked in the 90's, didn't it?

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 11:40 AM
we already have an elite RB you moron

and no superbowl team in memory has had 2 'elite' backs...

Damn. Got me on a technicality. I am defeated. Nooooooo!

IDIOT.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 11:40 AM
Ok man. Let's just say, Chiefs D is stout as hell. Receivers are leet. You have a sick 2 RB tandem and you have a serviceable QB that limits TO. How is that not a recipe for a Superbowl or a deep playoff team? Don't make me laugh.

And don't even think I'm calling Cassel serviceable.

The Chiefs D is stout as hell. It's not the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs, however.

Those just happen to be the ONLY two teams to win Super Bowls in the last 15 years to win a Super Bowl with an elite QB.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 11:42 AM
Yeah. But this is about drafting a RB, not about whether or not we're drafting a QB.

QB is the obvious answer.

But passing up one of the best talents in the draft because our QB isn't there is not how you build a talented team.

It is if you care about winning it all.

If you care about being a "competitor" rather than a "contender", so that you can fill seats, by all means, draft the elite RB.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 11:43 AM
Because there is a ton of uncertainty surrounding our elite back. He's not built to handle 350+ carries. Doing so will drive JC into the ground.

That's even if his surgically repaired knee survives his first season back.

I guess i'm one of the few people who doesn't want to hinge our running game on a bum knee and Jackie Battle.

Why hinge your running game on anything at all? The current NFL all but renders the 1st round RB obsolete. Hell, a couple of teams that are the favorites to win it all don't even HAVE a running game.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 11:45 AM
It is if you care about winning it all.

If you care about being a "competitor" rather than a "contender", so that you can fill seats, by all means, draft the elite RB.

Just go ahead and say it.

You'd prefer the Chiefs to win one game next season in hopes that Barkley falls in our lap. You'd rather see the Chiefs fail miserably next season.

I want a Franchise QB too.

But we can't predict the future. And with this D, and with Berry and Moeaki and Charles returning, sorry, we still won't be in a position to draft first overall next year even WITH Matt Cassel starting.

This team is far too talented to only win 1-2 games next season.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 11:47 AM
Why hinge your running game on anything at all? The current NFL all but renders the 1st round RB obsolete. Hell, a couple of teams that are the favorites to win it all don't even HAVE a running game.

ok.

Outside of having an elite QB, teams have to run the football.

The NFL may be slanted right now, but it ain't THAT slanted.

We just watched the Donkeys dismantle Pitts D this past weekend because their running game opened up the passing game for Tebow.

I'll take Bowe/Breaston/Baldwin one on one any day.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 11:55 AM
Just go ahead and say it.

You'd prefer the Chiefs to win one game next season in hopes that Barkley falls in our lap. You'd rather see the Chiefs fail miserably next season.

I want a Franchise QB too.

But we can't predict the future. And with this D, and with Berry and Moeaki and Charles returning, sorry, we still won't be in a position to draft first overall next year even WITH Matt Cassel starting.

This team is far too talented to only win 1-2 games next season.

Again, you've missed the point.

I don't really CARE what happens next season. It's a lost season, we don't have a QB. If we win 1 game or 8, great, I don't care.

What I do care about is the long-term chances for success.

Drafting Richardson makes next year look more like an 8-win year than a 2-year win for sure.

It also makes the next FIVE years look more like 8-win years than Super Bowl years.

I don't know how else to explain it so that it's clear - we don't have a QB and we're not going to get one this year. However, we need to keep looking.

Drafting a player like Richardson all but guarantees they QUIT looking. We'll spend his entire career looking for the next Cassel or Orton and trying to get by, just the like the Vikings.

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 12:02 PM
Who do we draft htis?

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:25 PM
Who do we draft htis?

OT, OG, C, TE, CB, S, ILB, NT...any of those would be fine.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 12:30 PM
Again, you've missed the point.

I don't really CARE what happens next season. It's a lost season, we don't have a QB. If we win 1 game or 8, great, I don't care.

What I do care about is the long-term chances for success.

Drafting Richardson makes next year look more like an 8-win year than a 2-year win for sure.

It also makes the next FIVE years look more like 8-win years than Super Bowl years.

I don't know how else to explain it so that it's clear - we don't have a QB and we're not going to get one this year. However, we need to keep looking.

Drafting a player like Richardson all but guarantees they QUIT looking. We'll spend his entire career looking for the next Cassel or Orton and trying to get by, just the like the Vikings.

mmmm....The Viking signed a future HOF QB to complement AP. Then, not even one year removed, they drafted a 1st rnd QB.

The Jags, Titans and Chargers are also examples of teams who didn't follow that recipe, so your argument isn't very strong.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 12:32 PM
OT, OG, C, TE, CB, S, ILB, NT...any of those would be fine.

Basically, any position that doesn't lead to more points scored, that way offensive failure is almost guaranteed.

We should just cut Charles and let Bowe walk while we're at it. Maybe even dismantle the Defense.

Then there is no way we win more than two games! Success!

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:39 PM
mmmm....The Viking signed a future HOF QB to complement AP. Then, not even one year removed, they drafted a 1st rnd QB.

The Vikings signed a future HoF QB who almost everybody knew was over-the-hill. They replaced him with someone who was even more spent. They FINALLY drafted a 1st round QB just in time for AP to suffer the worst injury of his career.

The Jags, Titans and Chargers are also examples of teams who didn't follow that recipe, so your argument isn't very strong.

CJ and MJD's best years are behind them. Neither of them will see a SB with Gabbert or Locker because they waited too long to pull the trigger on the QB.

The Chargers drafted Ryan Matthews AFTER they drafted Phillip Rivers.

My argument holds.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:40 PM
Basically, any position that doesn't lead to more points scored, that way offensive failure is almost guaranteed.

We should just cut Charles and let Bowe walk while we're at it. Maybe even dismantle the Defense.

Then there is no way we win more than two games! Success!

If we want to win a Super Bowl WHILE Charles and Bowe are still here, we should do everything in our power to get them a QB.

Putting a 5-8 year bandaid on the problem and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to help them.

Bowser
01-11-2012, 12:40 PM
As far as Richardson goes - I wouldn't be pissed if we got him, provided we make the smart moves in FA to complement the draft pick. And I floated this yesterday - I'm liking the idea of making Chris Ivory a priority.

As far as Cassel goes - He's shown what he is, and most of us agree that it ain't good. The one situation we have not seen from Cassel is how he would respond if there is legit competition for the QB position through the offseason and into training camp. Throw in the other unknown quality of working with Zorn an entire offseason, and who is going to OC here, maybe it causes him to step up his game?


I say this because I have accepted that Pioli will not take a quarterback in the first this year. OL is boring, especially that high, but it's what this team needs. A right tackle and a guard/center.

Frankie
01-11-2012, 01:01 PM
because Superbowls are won by great QBs, not serviceable QBs....

I think Chiefs have the swag necessary to win a SB without an elite QB. You need to recognize and not be retarded.

Once upon a time teams could occasionally win a Super Bowl with just serviceable QBs if the rest of the squad was great. But the nature of the game has changed and in today's football you need at least a semi-elite QB.

I miss voyager and his entire draft of bigXII picks that he would have the Chiefs making.

He's probably still here under a mult.