PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft drafting Trent Richardson


Pages : 1 [2]

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 02:36 PM
What QB can we draft at 11 that is going to win us a playoff game...

I never said anything about Richardson winning a playoff game but how many playoff wins does glenn Dorsey have? We could play this idiotic game all day.

TR at 11 would cost us like 10M for 4 years...sign me up

Rather take him then a RT we could find in the later rounds or free agency.

Baby Lee
01-12-2012, 02:40 PM
What QB can we draft at 11 that is going to win us a playoff game...

I never said anything about Richardson winning a playoff game but how many playoff wins does glenn Dorsey have? We could play this idiotic game all day.

TR at 11 would cost us like 10M for 4 years...sign me up

Rather take him then a RT we could find in the later rounds or free agency.


Irrational and unshakeable, dude. Irrational and unshakeable.

Forget it Hootie, it's Htistown.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 02:45 PM
What QB can we draft at 11 that is going to win us a playoff game...

I never said anything about Richardson winning a playoff game but how many playoff wins does glenn Dorsey have? We could play this idiotic game all day.

TR at 11 would cost us like 10M for 4 years...sign me up

Rather take him then a RT we could find in the later rounds or free agency.

You've completely missed the point.

We're not getting a QB at 11. It's not about that. It's about acquiring players that dictate philosophy.

Since Glenn Dorsey isn't even an offense player, he's irrelevant.

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 03:31 PM
You've completely missed the point.

We're not getting a QB at 11. It's not about that. It's about acquiring players that dictate philosophy.

Since Glenn Dorsey isn't even an offense player, he's irrelevant.

well you implied TR would be a bad pick because Adrian Peterson has never won anything (they did win some playoff games but I'll give Favre the credit for that as well)...

another guy posted all of the highly drafted RB busts as well (we could do that for every position)...

the thing is, the RB draft has changed...with the new CBA, teams can take RB's top 10 again and they don't have to be thought of as revolutionary players like Reggie Bush.

I'm all for drafting a guy at 11 that will make this team a better football team...right away. Trent Richardson does that...a RB has almost a zero learning curve.

I'd love to draft a QB, or get Luck or Griffin, but if that can't happen then at 11 we should take the guy who makes us a better football team NEXT year and to me that's Trent Richardson.

Trent Richardson and Jamaal Charles with Dexter McCluster sprinkled in is just downright scary. No team in the NFL will have our running game, and no team in the NFL will have our secondary...combine that with two all-pro LB's and a couple of 5 techniques who apparently don't suck after all...and we're on the right track.

I'll be pissed if we choose Cassel over Orton because I think Orton, with our defense and supplemental ground game, and a year of getting chemistry with Bowe can lead us to 11-5 or 12-4 and a playoff win or two. That's a step.

Franchise QB's don't grow on trees.

P.S. If we could somehow land P. Manning and Trent Richardson I'll bet a lot of $$$ on a Super Bowl. We'd be the best team on paper and it wouldn't be close...but I realize that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Baby Lee
01-12-2012, 03:36 PM
Trent Richardson and Jamaal Charles with Dexter McCluster sprinkled in is just downright scary. No team in the NFL will have our running game, and no team in the NFL will have our secondary...combine that with two all-pro LB's and a couple of 5 techniques who apparently don't suck after all...and we're on the right track.

What you're missing is that htis doesn't want ANY of that, anything that makes for a good team, until a premiere QB is signed.

Anything that trends to quality or optimism just masks how much we need a QB, IHO. The better the team is and does, the more it masks how much we need a QB.


QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 03:38 PM
well you implied TR would be a bad pick because Adrian Peterson has never won anything (they did win some playoff games but I'll give Favre the credit for that as well)...

I think you're slightly misunderstanding. Adrian Peterson has never won anything because the Vikings, with Adrian Peterson, though Tarvaris Jackson could win a SB. They thought an old, broken Brett Favre could win a Super Bowl. They though a Donovan McNabb that was worse than Matt Cassel in Washington could win a Super Bowl.

Adrian Peterson isn't a bad player nor is he a bad pick. It's not his fault that the Vikings think so much of his ability that they thought what they were doing at QB was good enough.

I'm all for drafting a guy at 11 that will make this team a better football team...right away. Trent Richardson does that...a RB has almost a zero learning curve.

I'd love to draft a QB, or get Luck or Griffin, but if that can't happen then at 11 we should take the guy who makes us a better football team NEXT year and to me that's Trent Richardson.

We're going to have Matt Cassel next year. Not only does Trent Richardson make us better, he makes us good enough for Pioli to trot Cassel out there in 2013, 2014, 2015, and beyond.

If I thought they were going into next year with Orton or even Stanzi as the starter and they were absolutely going to look for a QB next offseason REGARDLESS of results on the field, I would be fine with Richardson.

But I've seen way too much fail out of this franchise. I just don't trust them to do the right thing.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 03:38 PM
What you're missing is that htis doesn't want ANY of that, anything that makes for a good team, until a premiere QB is signed.

Anything that trends to quality or optimism just masks how much we need a QB, IHO. The better the team is and does, the more it masks how much we need a QB.


QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB QB

You're oversimplifying it by quite a bit.

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 03:40 PM
What you're missing is that htis doesn't want ANY of that, anything that makes for a good team, until a premiere QB is signed.

Anything that trends to quality or optimism just masks how much we need a QB, IHO.

well his type (the drafturbators) won't give Pioli a shot...they are so mad Carl never drafted or developed a QB they can't get over it...just like 5 years ago they couldn't get over BPA, and now BPA doesn't matter it's QB or bust, etc. etc. etc.

I'd love to draft and develop a QB...I'd love to not have Matt Cassel...but franchise QB's don't grow on trees...

I'd rather have a Trent Richardson than a Blaine Gabbert. If there are no viable options to draft at QB at #11, take the BPA, we can afford to draft for luxury because we don't really have any glaring holes that aren't QB's or a RT...Trent Richardson is a perfect fit for our offense. Charles is injury prone and is really suited for 10-15 touches a game (Haley had that part right), and Richardson would be his perfect compliment.

and then we could watch some god damn tape and figure out how to use McCluster like New Orleans uses Sproles and we are downright dangerous.

Of course, we really should re-sign Orton and cut bait with Cassel, and I'm crossing my fingers for that one.

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 03:43 PM
I think you're slightly misunderstanding. Adrian Peterson has never won anything because the Vikings, with Adrian Peterson, though Tarvaris Jackson could win a SB. They thought an old, broken Brett Favre could win a Super Bowl. They though a Donovan McNabb that was worse than Matt Cassel in Washington could win a Super Bowl.

Adrian Peterson isn't a bad player nor is he a bad pick. It's not his fault that the Vikings think so much of his ability that they thought what they were doing at QB was good enough.



We're going to have Matt Cassel next year. Not only does Trent Richardson make us better, he makes us good enough for Pioli to trot Cassel out there in 2013, 2014, 2015, and beyond.

If I thought they were going into next year with Orton or even Stanzi as the starter and they were absolutely going to look for a QB next offseason REGARDLESS of results on the field, I would be fine with Richardson.

But I've seen way too much fail out of this franchise. I just don't trust them to do the right thing.

and in all honesty, they should have gone to the Super Bowl with Brett Favre but Favre made that one big mistake when they were in field goal range to get to the big game.

but again, beside the point

I'm not convinced Cassel will be back...the GM and HC aren't going to come out and say "Matt Cassel isn't our QB, we're going to cut him"...they aren't going to say shit.

Right now, you're worrying about things that are out of your control.

Remember last time this happened with Green and Huard, and Croyle and Huard...you just make up your mind right away and there is no going back...

well I'm telling you, Pioli hasn't made up his mind one bit on Matt Cassel. You have 3 years of evidence with Pioli, what happened when Carl was here is irrelevant. Pioli doesn't drop hints to the media, no one has any clue what we're going to do about the QB situation.

If I had to bet, I'd bet Orton. I think Pioli is a smart enough guy to know it's time to cut bait on Cassel.

Baby Lee
01-12-2012, 03:46 PM
You're oversimplifying it by quite a bit.

And your argument that I should put more effort into precision?

It's an irrational and unshakeable opinion. One would think Munson's 'HA HA' gif would suffice.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 03:50 PM
well his type (the drafturbators) won't give Pioli a shot...they are so mad Carl never drafted or developed a QB they can't get over it...just like 5 years ago they couldn't get over BPA, and now BPA doesn't matter it's QB or bust, etc. etc. etc.

I'd love to draft and develop a QB...I'd love to not have Matt Cassel...but franchise QB's don't grow on trees...

I'd rather have a Trent Richardson than a Blaine Gabbert. If there are no viable options to draft at QB at #11, take the BPA, we can afford to draft for luxury because we don't really have any glaring holes that aren't QB's or a RT...Trent Richardson is a perfect fit for our offense. Charles is injury prone and is really suited for 10-15 touches a game (Haley had that part right), and Richardson would be his perfect compliment.

and then we could watch some god damn tape and figure out how to use McCluster like New Orleans uses Sproles and we are downright dangerous.

Of course, we really should re-sign Orton and cut bait with Cassel, and I'm crossing my fingers for that one.

All of what you say here makes perfect sense and I absolutely agree. Again, this has nothing to do with this year's draft other than the fact that Richardson will be in it.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 03:52 PM
Right now, you're worrying about things that are out of your control.

And I have admitted as much.

well I'm telling you, Pioli hasn't made up his mind one bit on Matt Cassel. You have 3 years of evidence with Pioli, what happened when Carl was here is irrelevant. Pioli doesn't drop hints to the media, no one has any clue what we're going to do about the QB situation.

When you've been a fan for 3 decades and have only seen 3 or 4 playoff wins that you can remember, what happened with Carl is ABSOLUTELY relevant.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 03:53 PM
And your argument that I should put more effort into precision?

It's an irrational and unshakeable opinion. One would think Munson's 'HA HA' gif would suffice.

Irrational? Somewhat. Emotional? 100%

It's also based on 30 years of cold, hard observational evidence. You can't argue otherwise because they simple fact is that they've tried the run-first approach many, many times and it's never worked.

milkshock
01-12-2012, 04:10 PM
lets face it we will have sub-standard qb play next year.

the best way of mitigating that is not having the qb throw.

so lets go for a run heavy attack with what will be the best 1-2 punch in the NFL.

i also have no confidence in crennel as an offensive schemer so best to keep things simple.

TEX
01-12-2012, 05:21 PM
just saw the 2nd different mock that has us taking T-Rich 2.0 w/our 1st pick. I'm not opposed to it since no all-world DT is available this year. Here's the write up from Foxsports:

11. Kansas City Chiefs*: Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama: The Chiefs lost Jamaal Charles in the second week of the 2011 NFL season, and the offense never rebounded. Charles should be back and healthy next season, but Richardson is the rare running back talent who can completely change an offense. The way this mock draft has unfolded, he’ll be slipping out of the Top 10 — something few scouts or experts expect. A different type of back from Charles, the two could work together to form a dynamic duo in the Kansas City backfield. Though Charles signed a five-year, $32 million extension in 2010, he’s not making the Adrian Peterson/Chris Johnson money you might expect. Richardson, a between-the-tackles grinder, is viewed as a much better pro prospect than his former teammate, Mark Ingram. In the rough-and-tumble AFC West, I love the thought of a Charles-Richardson platoon.

I'd be fine with it.

notorious
01-12-2012, 05:24 PM
For a decade, you draft any position in the first round other than QB, and I will draft only QB until I find the one.


We will see who wins a championship first.

O.city
01-12-2012, 06:00 PM
I'd draft him, just because I have been talked into, by BossChief, that Stanzi is gonna be the guy.

Chocolate Hog
01-12-2012, 06:08 PM
Richardson if the 3 QB prospects have already been drafted. Richardson has more value than a right tackle and there aren't any NT worthy of being drafted that high.

tredadda
01-12-2012, 08:04 PM
Without a real QB we'll never be a legitimate playoff team.

If we take a RB now, especially one like Trent Richardson, there's a very real chance they build the offense around him and completely forego trying to find a real QB.

"When you have Trent Richardson (Barry Sanders) you can get by with Matt Cassel (Scott Mitchell)."

Next year is a lost year, regardless of who we draft, because we don't have a QB. Taking a RT only continues to build the team around the gaping hole at QB. Taking an elite RB covers that hole with a carpet and makes people believe there's no hole there...

That is until the team gets to the playoffs and they step on the rug, plunging to their death in the hole below it.

Have you ignored the history of this team? QB is not a priority. If it were we would replace Cassel. But if and when we eventually replace him it will be with Peyton or Matt Flynn. That is how this team always has addressed tehe QB position. At least with Richardson we have a better chance of winning it all with our QB than we do with an elite RT.

durtyrute
01-12-2012, 08:12 PM
What Carl did has nothing to do with what is going on now. Maybe a handful of people thought Pioli was going to pick Berry. No one saw T Jack or any of his picks. Stop pretending like you all sit in the war room and know whats up.

tredadda
01-12-2012, 08:42 PM
What Carl did has nothing to do with what is going on now. Maybe a handful of people thought Pioli was going to pick Berry. No one saw T Jack or any of his picks. Stop pretending like you all sit in the war room and know whats up.

Our QB trend precedes Carl Peterson. Also to get one of the studs this year will involve us trading up in the first and Pioli's history says he won't. Now he could change that, and if he does I will be the first to admit I am wrong.

durtyrute
01-12-2012, 08:45 PM
Our QB trend precedes Carl Peterson. Also to get one of the studs this year will involve us trading up in the first and Pioli's history says he won't. Now he could change that, and if he does I will be the first to admit I am wrong.

That's even worse if we're going back past Carl. No one knows what Pioli will do. Everyone says "Pioli won't do this or that" How do we know?

tredadda
01-12-2012, 09:38 PM
That's even worse if we're going back past Carl. No one knows what Pioli will do. Everyone says "Pioli won't do this or that" How do we know?

It is and it shows that this trend is not GM specific. The reason why people think Pioli won't do certain things is because of comments he makes and his past performance. He could surprise everyone, but until then they have to base off what they have observed.

O.city
01-12-2012, 09:50 PM
If he's the BPA at a position we need take him. If not take whoever is. Thats it.

Chief_For_Life58
01-12-2012, 09:57 PM
I wouldn't be opposed to it, IF he's healthy. I tend to think he won't ever be the same.

I'd just as soon take an OL and try to sign Orton.

Anything but Richardson. That's how strongly I feel about it. I'm not ready for another decade like the 90's, getting fooled into thinking we're a contender when we're not.


FFF*********KKKK!!!!!

jlscorpio
01-13-2012, 12:17 AM
The QB is going to be Matt Cassel. We're not going to throw for 4,000 yards.

Might as well take Richardson.

Begrudgingly...THIS

Dayze
01-13-2012, 08:48 AM
if Cassel is the starter, and/or you're not taking a QB in the first, then yes....take Richardson.

he's a beast.

htismaqe
01-13-2012, 08:49 AM
Have you ignored the history of this team?

Did you pay attention to anything I said?

The history of this team is precisely why I don't want Richardson.

QB is not a priority. If it were we would replace Cassel. But if and when we eventually replace him it will be with Peyton or Matt Flynn.

Flynn at least has a chance.

At least with Richardson we have a better chance of winning it all with our QB than we do with an elite RT.

You honestly think that a team with Trent Richardson and no QB has any chance at all to win a Super Bowl? Get real.

I'm not advocating taking a RT because I think a RT increases our chances of winning a Super Bowl. I'm advocating taking one because it doesn't DECREASE our chances of continuing to look for a franchise QB...

bevischief
01-13-2012, 09:16 AM
http://kansascity.sbnation.com/kansas-city-chiefs/2012/1/13/2703689/2012-nfl-mock-draft-five-reasons-kansas-city-chiefs-must-choose-trent

2012 NFL Mock Draft: Five Reasons Kansas City Chiefs Must Choose Trent Richardson

Jan 13 8:00a by BJ Kissel

Read More: Thomas Jones (RB - KAN), Matt Cassel (QB - KAN), Jamaal Charles (RB - KAN), Barry Richardson (OT - KAN), Julio Jones (WR - ATL), Kansas City Chiefs

It's that time of the year again where everyone and their brother has their "can't miss" pick for their favorite NFL franchise. It's the nerd in all of us trying to piece together the NFL draft puzzle that no matter how much research you do or experts you listen to, something crazy always happens that nobody saw coming. (See Atlanta Falcons and Julio Jones last year). While I spend almost all of my time thinking and researching info on the Kansas City Chiefs, I admittedly have no idea what direction they're headed with this next draft.

There seems to be a consensus that offensive line is the way that the Chiefs are going to go with their first round pick. It's an easy choice for a team that only has two starters that can be 100% penciled in right now as starters heading into next season, right guard Jon Asamoah and left tackle Branden Albert. Center Casey Wiegmann is on the verge of retirement and while the Chiefs have Rodney Hudson waiting in the wings to take over, he didn't play center at all last season and isn't a given for the position heading into next season. The Chiefs also have to make decisions on Ryan Lilja and Barry Richardson this off season. Lilja regressed a bit in 2011 while moving to left guard after playing right guard in 2010. Barry Richardson has been at the center of attention in looking for a replacement since he took over a few seasons ago.

Even though offensive line is a priority for the Chiefs heading into this off season, there are still a few obvious reasons that the Chiefs should take Alabama running back Trent Richardson with their first pick in the 2012 NFL draft. While all of this in contingent on Richardson being available at No. 11, there's mixed opinions on whether he'll still be there when the Chiefs are on the clock. But if he is still available when the Chiefs pick, here are five reasons he should wear red and gold next season.

1. Insurance for an injured Jamaal Charles. Based on Scott Pioli's comments that the Chiefs will not be trading up for a quarterback in the draft it would seem that they are heading into next season with Matt Cassel as the quarterback. With that said, the Chiefs will then still be a run-heavy team and while getting a right tackle to help the running game would benefit the offense overall, it still becomes reliant on Charles' health and the second running back position. It seems unlikely that Thomas Jones will be back to be the one to split carries with Charles next season. Therefore with Charles coming back from an injury the Chiefs need to make sure that their bread and butter is still their bread and butter. Pounding the rock.

2. Matt Cassel is the Chiefs quarterback next season. I've officially fallen off the Matt Cassel can win us a Super Bowl wagon. I think we can be a good team with him under center, I am just not convinced we can be a great team with him. That is unless we have the most dominant run game in the history of the NFL. Trent Richardson is being called the best running back prospect since Adrian Peterson. He's able to stay in on third down and help in pass protection as well as catching passes out of the backfield. He would be the best option to help the Chiefs become the greatest running team of all time. Maybe a strong statement, but it's the only way in my opinion that the Chiefs can compete for a Super Bowl next year.

3. Insurance on a Jamaal Charles hold-out. Nobody likes to think of their teams' favorite player as a guy that could potentially hold out on his team before the season. I'm not saying that it will be next season because it couldn't be with his injury, but that's not to say it couldn't happen within the next two years after, if he's proven to come back and be the same player as he was before the injury. The reason it could be open for a hold out is that Charles' contract is much more team-friendly than other players around the league and while it sounds great now, it sets up for a hold-out situation.

Chris Johnson signed a six-year, $55.6 million deal with $30 million guaranteed before last season, and DeAngelo Williams signed a five-year $43 million with $21 million guaranteed. Charles contract was five-years, $27.97 million with $10 million guaranteed. When it comes to running backs it's all about the guaranteed money in the contract, and you can't convince me that Williams is worth twice as much and Johnson is worth three times as much as Charles. Bringing in Richardson protects the Chiefs in this situation as a guy who can still be a featured back and carry the ball for an offense that would be reliant on his production to win games.

4. You need two backs in this league right now. The Chiefs are going to be a run-first team and Jackie Battle, Dexter McCluster or Thomas Jones cannot be the No. 2 back for a team that has Matt Cassel under center and wants to compete for Championships. Plain and simple. Richardson can take short-yardage situations, but can also make big plays with his size/speed combination. He and Charles would complement each other well and the Chiefs will need that in 2012.

5. The value for the team, not just the draft. Many people will argue that the Chiefs shouldn't take Richardson if he's available because running backs just aren't as valuable as they used to be and good ones can be found later in the draft. In any other year or if it was any other player I would completely agree with this logic. The issue that Richardson isn't just any running back, he IS that good and the Chiefs are a run-first team whose only legitimate running back is coming off major knee surgery. I'd love to get a good right tackle, but what happens when we have a great right tackle and our No. 2 running back is Jackie Battle? Or heaven-forbid Charles doesn't come back as the same player or tweaks his knee again? We'd be right back to where we started, only slightly better on the offensive line but still don't have the playmakers to take advantage of an improved OL.

The same argument can be made for finding an offensive tackle in the second round that could come in and compete for a starting position. I'd rather take Trent Richardson and let Barry Richardson, David Mims and a second-round pick battle it out for the right tackle position.

The bottom line is that the Chiefs are going to rely heavily on the run game to win games and they'll need more insurance in the running back position than Jamaal Charles coming off an injury and Jackie Battle or some later-round pick. It's just too important to this offense to not get the best players available at the position. Not to say that offensive line isn't important, but Richardson is the running back equivalent to Matt Kalil in this draft, and the Chiefs don't have a shot at Kalil, they might with Richardson.

htismaqe
01-13-2012, 09:19 AM
So basically he's saying exactly what I said:

The Chiefs are a run-first team who need to be even MORE run-first.

I guess I'm gonna have to see an addiction specialist, get hypotherapy, and find a new team...

DaKCMan AP
01-13-2012, 09:21 AM
3. Insurance on a Jamaal Charles hold-out. Nobody likes to think of their teams' favorite player as a guy that could potentially hold out on his team before the season. I'm not saying that it will be next season because it couldn't be with his injury, but that's not to say it couldn't happen within the next two years after, if he's proven to come back and be the same player as he was before the injury. The reason it could be open for a hold out is that Charles' contract is much more team-friendly than other players around the league and while it sounds great now, it sets up for a hold-out situation.

Chris Johnson signed a six-year, $55.6 million deal with $30 million guaranteed before last season, and DeAngelo Williams signed a five-year $43 million with $21 million guaranteed. Charles contract was five-years, $27.97 million with $10 million guaranteed. When it comes to running backs it's all about the guaranteed money in the contract, and you can't convince me that Williams is worth twice as much and Johnson is worth three times as much as Charles. Bringing in Richardson protects the Chiefs in this situation as a guy who can still be a featured back and carry the ball for an offense that would be reliant on his production to win games.

This is stupid. Charles' extension was signed 13 months ago.

Detoxing
01-13-2012, 10:49 AM
This is stupid. Charles' extension was signed 13 months ago.

yup. While i agree with his stance, he was reaching a bit with that one.

Brock
01-13-2012, 10:53 AM
In the absence of a QB, this wouldn't be the dumbest thing they could do.

MatriculatingHank
01-14-2012, 03:49 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1021659-2012-nfl-mock-draft-where-trent-richardson-and-dre-kirkpatrick-could-land

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/302/219/136649762_crop_650x440.jpg?1326428960

11. Kansas City Chiefs—Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama

Too low? Possbily. But if the Cleveland Browns pass on Richardson for a quarterback early in the draft, which team is going to take him? There's a chance he could fall out of the top 10, and that's where the Chiefs come into play.

Kansas City will be getting back Jamaal Charles in 2012, so drafting Richardson would almost be a luxury at pick 11.

However, consider the 2010 season, when the Chiefs won 10 games and the AFC West while leading the NFL in rushing. They used Charles and Thomas Jones in a run-heavy offense that fit their style. With Charles blowing out his knee early in 2011 and Jones quickly regressing into the twilight of his career, the Chiefs run game suffered and wins fell.

By adding Richardson, the Chiefs could get back to their 2010 level of rushing prowess.

MahiMike
01-14-2012, 08:16 AM
I was all for this until the BCS championship game. Richardson didn't impress me against what would be an average NFL defense.

htismaqe
01-14-2012, 09:25 AM
However, consider the 2010 season, when the Chiefs won 10 games and the AFC West while leading the NFL in rushing.


Translation:

This is how you win with Cassel.

I hate this fucking team.

notorious
01-14-2012, 09:31 AM
Keep the ball out of the QB's hands as much as possible to raise our chance of winning.


:facepalm:

milkman
01-14-2012, 09:47 AM
Richardson if the 3 QB prospects have already been drafted. Richardson has more value than a right tackle and there aren't any NT worthy of being drafted that high.

3?

Are you including Tannehill?

Deberg_1990
01-14-2012, 09:50 AM
Translation:

This is how you win with Cassel.

I hate this fucking team.

Well, I'm not sure what we all expect them to do? It's a business and ultimately, they want to keep butts in seats. They don't want to start over with a young QB, because that would mean losing and sacrificeing a season or two. The Chiefs have rarely been God awful bad to draft top 3 to 5 and when they did, they were unlucky enough that those were weak QB years. If a QB isn't.there, might as well draft a playmaker at RB.
Posted via Mobile Device

chiefzilla1501
01-14-2012, 09:54 AM
This place is fucking crazy sometimes.

A QB is critical. But for people to suggest that we can't be a serious threat with Richardson and especially Richardson/Charles combo are just plain crazy.

To the point where we're actually justifying reaching for a QB nobody's actually excited about. FML.

milkman
01-14-2012, 09:58 AM
Translation:

This is how you win with Cassel.

I hate this ****ing team.

Let me start by saying that I believe a team that can play defense and run the ball can win a championship with a game manager QB.

In fact, I believe a top 10 defense and top 10 running game is still a formula for long term success.

The key, however, is that your game manager QB has to be able to step up and make plays.

That '05 Steeler team is the model that I would love to follow.

That being said, there's no way that the Chiefs, or any team, can win with Matt Cassel a championship at QB.

The Houston Texans this year, with Schaub at QB, could be a taem that might be hard to get by, because they would be the most balanced team in the playoffs.

Great D, outstanding running team, and a QB that can make plays (though we don't know how he stands up to playoff pressure).

I also believe that it will, at some point soon, become obvious to everyone that Cassel is not the answer.

The question then becomes, how will that problem be addressed.

This is where my lack of faith kicks in.

htismaqe
01-14-2012, 10:12 AM
I'm not advocating reaching for a QB.

I'm STRONGLY against anything that would make this FO believe Matt Cassel is anything more than a 1-year stopgap.

Trent Richardson is the kind of player that could make them believe they can get by with Cassel for 5 or 6 more years.

Fuck that.

jspchief
01-14-2012, 10:15 AM
He's not making it to 12.

notorious
01-14-2012, 10:22 AM
could make them believe they can get by with Cassel for 5 or 6 more years.




OMFG.


It actually can get worse.....

Reaper16
01-14-2012, 10:40 AM
I was all for this until the BCS championship game. Richardson didn't impress me against what would be an average NFL defense.
No RB would be getting many yards against a defense so singularly predicated on stopping the run. Richardson was actually very fucking impressive in that game.

chiefzilla1501
01-14-2012, 10:47 AM
I'm not advocating reaching for a QB.

I'm STRONGLY against anything that would make this FO believe Matt Cassel is anything more than a 1-year stopgap.

Trent Richardson is the kind of player that could make them believe they can get by with Cassel for 5 or 6 more years.

**** that.

That scares me too.

But if you draft Richardson and surround him with a very good QB, the team could be tremendous. And if you bring in a young QB, Richardson helps you ease the QB in.

But we're assuming that Pioli has the common sense for this. I'm not convinced he does.

Okie_Apparition
01-14-2012, 11:29 AM
They've had the most success under Pioli as a running team
build to their strengths & develop a QB while doing it
hopefully one worth the time this go around

O.city
01-14-2012, 11:58 AM
Richardson is gonna be great in that he and Charles can help us bring Stanzi along slow next year so he is ready to gunsling when the playoffs start.

notorious
01-14-2012, 12:00 PM
Richardson is gonna be great in that he and Charles can help us bring Stanzi along slow next year so he is ready to gunsling when the playoffs start.

A light shining through the port-o-potty.


This is the only hope I carry for our future at QB. The 1:100 longshot in Rick Stanzi.

O.city
01-14-2012, 12:03 PM
If Richardson is there when we draft, pick him.

If he's not, try and trade down acquire an extra 2 round pick, trade down to the 20's. Take Konz with that first pick.

Use the seconds on Reynolds and Hightower in the 2. Take Chris Polk in the 3. Go even more truefan the rest of the way.

It's not a flashy draft, but it would be solid.

Chief3188
01-14-2012, 01:10 PM
What kind of games do you want to win? Because running games don't win in the postseason.

2005, 2008 and 2009 Steelers, 2006 Bears, 2011 Texans, 2009 and 2010 Jets and many more teams disagree with you.

MIAdragon
01-14-2012, 01:19 PM
2005, 2008 and 2009 Steelers, 2006 Bears, 2011 Texans, 2009 and 2010 Jets and many more teams disagree with you.

Did they win because of the running game or did they win due to their defense. All of those teams you listed were 5 were top 4 in PPG another was 6th and the bottom dweller was 10th.

htismaqe
01-14-2012, 04:13 PM
2005, 2008 and 2009 Steelers, 2006 Bears, 2011 Texans, 2009 and 2010 Jets and many more teams disagree with you.

Only the 2005 Steelers made it to the Super Bowl. The 2008 Steelers weren't a run-first team.

The rest of the teams met a real QB in the playoffs and wilted, with the exception of the 2011 Texans - it's laughable you even included a team that won last weekend.

htismaqe
01-14-2012, 04:14 PM
That scares me too.

But if you draft Richardson and surround him with a very good QB, the team could be tremendous. And if you bring in a young QB, Richardson helps you ease the QB in.

But we're assuming that Pioli has the common sense for this. I'm not convinced he does.

I'm thoroughly convinced he doesn't. That's why I don't want Richardson - we'll never get a QB.

The only way we're going to get one is for the team to completely bottom out.

Or maybe Cassel can get hit by a bus...

Pawnmower
01-14-2012, 04:26 PM
THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

That is because you are an idiot.

You don't draft on need alone, you draft (especially in round 1) the best player on the board.

(Not saying he is the best player, but in general you should draft the best player available with the high picks, imo)

NJChiefsFan
01-14-2012, 06:47 PM
I was all for this until the BCS championship game. Richardson didn't impress me against what would be an average NFL defense.

Thats a pretty unfair way to look at it. He is running behind what would be an average offensive line at the NFL level. LSU has a great defense. Not to mention that Richardson wasn't even used in the redzone which I did'nt understand at all.