PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Drafting a rookie quarterback.


O.city
02-22-2012, 02:22 PM
With all the talk about quarterbacks around here, it made me think.

Say the Chiefs drafted a quarterback in the first round. Made him the starter from day 1, no questions asked.

How many years would you guys give him before you give up on the guy? How patient would Chiefs fans be?

In my opinion, it's 3 years.



EDIT: I'll add a little wrinkle. Say by some fate of the world, we drafted RGIII. Or say we are in the Browns spot and were to draft RGIII, how many years you give him?

el borracho
02-22-2012, 02:26 PM
One game. If he doesn't win his first game, he should be cut.

the Talking Can
02-22-2012, 02:28 PM
4000

KCrockaholic
02-22-2012, 02:30 PM
3 days.

If he doesn't sign his contract by 3 days he can gtfo and we should just stick with Cassel.

SNR
02-22-2012, 02:31 PM
I'd certainly give him three years. Probably even four if fans could see gradual, steady, improvement.

A lot of fans think Chiefsplanet wouldn't be patient with a rookie QB. Bullshit. A rookie QB represents a franchise willing to pull the trigger and roll the dice. A rookie QB is everything this franchise has NOT done in all its years of futility. Do you think these fans would be anxious to flush him down the toilet that easily so we can trade and develop another Elvis Cassel? I sure as hell don't.

Sofa King
02-22-2012, 02:33 PM
I wouldn't start him. I'd set him on the bench for the mandatory 3 years while some old vet "grooms" him to be our "QBOTF". Heck, it worked with Aaron Rodgers. And we should draft him in the 6th cause Tom Brady.

O.city
02-22-2012, 02:33 PM
I think some posters on Cp would be patient. Some might not be.



Hell people are already giving up on Clausen after 1 year in a shitty situation.

Sofa King
02-22-2012, 02:34 PM
I think some posters on Cp would be patient. Some might not be.



Hell people are already giving up on Clausen after 1 year in a shitty situation.


Wow. Way to go out on a limb with that one. LMAO

keg in kc
02-22-2012, 02:38 PM
Making him the starter from day 1 is quite patient.

O.city
02-22-2012, 02:39 PM
Wow. Way to go out on a limb with that one. LMAO

Don't wanna call anyone out.

scho63
02-22-2012, 02:39 PM
Two years to learn and improve, then gotta have the right stuff early in year three or he's toast. Obviously the strength of his supporting cast is important. Two years of running for your life like jay Cutler in Chicago will destroy a rookie.

BryanBusby
02-22-2012, 02:42 PM
Scott Pioli would be neg rep bombing the shit out of this right now if he was on the Planet.

Micjones
02-22-2012, 02:54 PM
Three years at bottom. Four or more if there is steady improvement.

FAX
02-22-2012, 02:59 PM
It would take 6 months ... maybe 8 ... to clear the ERs, Hospitals, and Clinics of all the people suffering heart attacks, strokes, fainting spells, and psychic breakdowns, so they'd have at least that long.

FAX

Okie_Apparition
02-22-2012, 03:01 PM
I can't predict my power lust

Dayze
02-22-2012, 03:01 PM
Three years at bottom. Four or more if there is steady improvement.

That's about where I'm at as well.

whoman69
02-22-2012, 03:04 PM
I have to ask how old I will be when this happens? Will I be under 100?

milkman
02-22-2012, 03:07 PM
I think the patience of each individual would depend on how that individual viewed the prospect coming out of school.

People who were on the Jimmy Clausen bandwagon are the ones pining for the Chiefs to sign him should the Panthers release him.

Those of us who weren't sold on him coming out, or that felt he was shit, would be less inclined to give him more than a handful of games to show something to warrant support, and saw nothing from him his rookie season to suggest he's anything more than garbage.

I would give Tannehill 3 years to get it because I think his upside is high.

I wouldn't be so inclined for a guy like Landry Jones who looks to me like a guy that has all the potential to suck balls that Kyle Boller already sucked on.

HemiEd
02-22-2012, 03:15 PM
If he looks like he has the potential, shows leadership and pocket presence, I could be just as patient as I have with this fucking team. Forever it would seem.

But if he takes the field, wets his pants and panics, I am done.

Sorry, some have it and some don't. I didn't see one hint of panic out of Stanzi, he showed excellent pocket presence.

That is all I ask, have the tools to start with. You can't teach talent, Cassel is the best example of that. He has plenty of heart, but zero talent.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-22-2012, 03:38 PM
Give me Tannehill and 3 years.

Chief Roundup
02-22-2012, 04:33 PM
Truely depends on how the person looks. If he is ducking and heading for the fetal position or just abandoning the pocket because he thinks there is pressure but there really isn't, throwing stupid ints in his 2cd year he will be Not For Long.

bevischief
02-22-2012, 04:35 PM
Till he retires...

RustShack
02-22-2012, 05:01 PM
LOL. I just mentioned this in another thread. But my guess is that 1/2 of this place would be irate if he didn't look good his first game, and 3/4 would be irate after the rookie year. 7/8 would be irate if he wasn't producing after two years.

But all the douches would completely jump ship if he looked good his third year, and claim they knew he had it all along.

Oh and Pioli would have screwed it up big if he didn't produce right away. Well people will still hate on Pioli no matter what he does. If the Chiefs ever do win a Super Bowl under Pioli, it wont be because of him in a lot of opinions here.

Deberg_1990
02-22-2012, 05:18 PM
Depends on how much money we have invested in him. Typically a top 10 picks gets 4 years or so. Late 1st rounders and 2nd rounders are easier to give up on if they don't perform right away.
Posted via Mobile Device

RustShack
02-22-2012, 05:22 PM
Depends on how much money we have invested in him. Typically a top 10 picks gets 4 years or so. Late 1st rounders and 2nd rounders are easier to give up on if they don't perform right away.
Posted via Mobile Device

Typically that's what the SHOULD get you mean. That isn't what most of QB gives, by any stretch.

Maybe after three years of bitching and moaning they warm up to it if he becomes good. But they only stuck with him because they were forced to.

Micjones
02-22-2012, 05:27 PM
I think any QB the Chiefs drafted would get all the support in the world from this fanbase. Croyle was pretty pedestrian in the 9 games he started. And despite never having won a game as a Chief...people were still talking about him being the QBOTF two years after the fact.

Marcellus
02-22-2012, 05:28 PM
Cassel is only 30 guys, give him some time.

Marcellus
02-22-2012, 05:29 PM
I think any QB the Chiefs drafted would get all the support in the world from this fanbase. Croyle was pretty pedestrian in the 9 games he started. And despite never having won a game as a Chief...people were still talking about him being the QBOTF two years after the fact.

I have made the point several times that the only reason anybody still likes or mentions Croyle is he was drafted by KC.

He never even had what could be called a really good game.

milkman
02-22-2012, 05:31 PM
I have made the point several times that the only reason anybody still likes or mentions Croyle is he was drafted by KC.

He never even had what could be called a really good game.

He threw one good pass in a preseason game, so he had that going for him.

Micjones
02-22-2012, 05:36 PM
I have made the point several times that the only reason anybody still likes or mentions Croyle is he was drafted by KC.

He never even had what could be called a really good game.

That's my point.
Fans are so tired of retreads they'll be very patient with any QB we draft.

Munson
02-22-2012, 05:43 PM
I'd give a rookie first round pick (hopefully RGIII) 2-3 seasons, as long as he continually shows progress. If he starts to look like Cassel or Palko, I'll beat him upside the head with a burning AIDS tree branch.

whoman69
02-22-2012, 05:48 PM
Cassel is only 30 guys, give him some time.

If I thought you were serious I'd have you neg repped into hell.

Chiefaholic
02-22-2012, 05:48 PM
Myself... Have to give the rookie an opportunity to develop chemistry with his WR's, learn the playbook, and adjust to the speed of the NFL. You'd have to realistically wait till after his third season to give an honest opinion whether or not he's a franchise caliber guy or not. But, after reading this board for many years, I GUARANTEE there will be the typical drama queens (ex: Gochiefs) who'll be calling for his head by week six of his first season. If these fellas had their way, we would have already traded all of our playmakers for next to nothing in compensation.

Chiefaholic
02-22-2012, 05:51 PM
I'd give a rookie first round pick (hopefully RGIII) 2-3 seasons, as long as he continually shows progress. If he starts to look like Cassel or Palko, I'll beat him upside the head with a burning AIDS tree branch.


Like Trent Green's first season? It's a damn shame we had a cancer of a defense to go along with the offensive show Green, Gonzo, Kennison, and Holmes displayed. Last years defense with Green's offense would have been a legit Superbowl contender last season.

Coogs
02-22-2012, 08:22 PM
This is the crappy thing about building the team first... then adding the QB, vs. getting the QB first... then building the team around him.

If all of the team is in place... which we are close to having... then having to wait 3 to 4 years for the QB to beccome championship worthy, then the rest of the team is in decline and you have to begin all over.

If the QB is added first... then he can have his learning curve while the team is being built, and you can have a 10 year run or so... kind of like the Colts just got done with.

hometeam
02-22-2012, 08:24 PM
3-4 years maximum is all anyone gets as a chance in this league. Whether it be GMs, coaches, players, etc. If they cannot perform in that time they are out.

jaa1025
02-22-2012, 09:38 PM
Depends on how he looked.

If he looked like a Tebow clone then I would be calling for his head by year 2. If he showed flashes of brilliance mixed in with mistakes I'd say 3 years.

Mr. Laz
02-22-2012, 09:44 PM
he'd be given about 8 games before he'd be called a bust unless he pulled a Cam Newton.

lewdog
02-22-2012, 10:20 PM
I would say 3 years as well. Especially if we are winning between 6 and 8 games in those first 2 years because that is pretty much what we do anyway.

KC Tattoo
02-22-2012, 11:03 PM
It's not going to matter come December 21/ Mayans.

SNR
02-22-2012, 11:22 PM
he'd be given about 8 games before he'd be called a bust unless he pulled a Cam Newton.
False.
I'd certainly give him three years. Probably even four if fans could see gradual, steady, improvement.

A lot of fans think Chiefsplanet wouldn't be patient with a rookie QB. Bullshit. A rookie QB represents a franchise willing to pull the trigger and roll the dice. A rookie QB is everything this franchise has NOT done in all its years of futility. Do you think these fans would be anxious to flush him down the toilet that easily so we can trade and develop another Elvis Cassel? I sure as hell don't.

chiefzilla1501
02-23-2012, 06:46 AM
it would be the flip. True fans would give him too little time, non true fans would give him too much. Mark Sanchez is living proof of that. He was always better than critics gave him credit for but worse than lovers gave him credit for. But because this place is so black and white he was polarizing.

I'd give a young qb three years. But I'd still stockpile qbs on the side. Much as we rave about first round qbs over cassel, teams like Tampa aren't in a much different situation than we are. Hell, I still feel the jets and ravens are insanely talented teams held back by their qb. I think we often oversimplify how easy it is to find a franchise qb. It's why I hate the idea of drafting a first round qb for the sake of drafting one. No. You still have to wait for the right one and if you can get him, you move mountains to get him.

milkman
02-23-2012, 09:01 PM
it would be the flip. True fans would give him too little time, non true fans would give him too much. Mark Sanchez is living proof of that. He was always better than critics gave him credit for but worse than lovers gave him credit for. But because this place is so black and white he was polarizing.

I'd give a young qb three years. But I'd still stockpile qbs on the side. Much as we rave about first round qbs over cassel, teams like Tampa aren't in a much different situation than we are. Hell, I still feel the jets and ravens are insanely talented teams held back by their qb. I think we often oversimplify how easy it is to find a franchise qb. It's why I hate the idea of drafting a first round qb for the sake of drafting one. No. You still have to wait for the right one and if you can get him, you move mountains to get him.

The Jets are not insanely talented.

They spent money in free agency a couple of years ago, and teams that build thier core through free agency have never had sustained success, nor have they gone to a SB.

And that core of free agents is aging.

chiefzilla1501
02-23-2012, 09:08 PM
The Jets are not insanely talented.

They spent money in free agency a couple of years ago, and teams that build thier core through free agency have never had sustained success, nor have they gone to a SB.

And that core of free agents is aging.

They have an all-world offensive line that is a QB's wet dream. Productive RBs. Very good receivers. And while their defense has had some ups and downs the past two years, it's still one of the better defenses in the league.

There is no excuse for a QB not to be extremely productive with that team. Very few rookies walk into a situation like that.

milkman
02-23-2012, 09:22 PM
They have an all-world offensive line that is a QB's wet dream. Productive RBs. Very good receivers. And while their defense has had some ups and downs the past two years, it's still one of the better defenses in the league.

There is no excuse for a QB not to be extremely productive with that team. Very few rookies walk into a situation like that.

Their "all-world" O-Line wasn't nearly as good this season as it was in previous seasons, and their running game, which was their bread and butter has declined in each of the last two seasons.

And yes, Mark Sanchez has been a disappointment.

But tell me all the teams that built thier core group through free agency that have participated in the SB.

Urc Burry
02-23-2012, 09:23 PM
Heard some good news that the browns were highly considering Matt Flynn. That helps the little chance KC had at RG3

BossChief
02-23-2012, 09:25 PM
Heard some good news that the browns were highly considering Matt Flynn. That helps the little chance KC had at RG3

interested in purchasing some oceanfront property?

Ill sell it cheap, cause I need the money for my mothers heart surgery.

Tombstone RJ
02-23-2012, 09:25 PM
The Jets are not insanely talented.

They spent money in free agency a couple of years ago, and teams that build thier core through free agency have never had sustained success, nor have they gone to a SB.

And that core of free agents is aging.

The Jets are pretty friggen talented. I know the QB gets too much credit for wins and too much credit for losses but I think if you put a good QB on that team it makes it a power house team in the AFC.

I know Ryan thinks they have the talent to win it all. Generally a HC won't spout off unless he thinks his team has the talent to back it up.

Sanchize is still young and it'd be hard to pull the plug on him because they have won with him. That being said, you have to wonder if he's holding that team back....

Urc Burry
02-23-2012, 09:27 PM
Shawn Zobel ‏ @ShawnZobel_DHQ Reply Retweet Favorite Open
Report: From a source I trust, I've been told that #Packers and #Browns have had discussions regarding a Matt Flynn trade.

Shawn Zobel ‏ @ShawnZobel_DHQ Reply Retweet Favorite Open
To follow up, the #Packers would put the franchise tag on Flynn with Finley now signed. Sounds like they're starting talks w/ a 2nd RD pick

RustShack
02-23-2012, 09:30 PM
I'd be OK with the Browns going Matt Cassel V2.

BossChief
02-23-2012, 09:30 PM
Their "all-world" O-Line wasn't nearly as good this season as it was in previous seasons, and their running game, which was their bread and butter has declined in each of the last two seasons.

And yes, Mark Sanchez has been a disappointment.

But tell me all the teams that built thier core group through free agency that have participated in the SB.

Here is a legit question.

I see NY as a more "real" possibility for a landing spot for PM.

If that happens and they cut Sanchez (which is a real possibility...here is whats left in his contract: 2012: $8.5 million (+ $2.75 million roster bonus due 3/28), 2013: $4.525 million

What kind of offer do you think he would garner?...also, would you rather sign a guy like him or draft a guy like Foles or somebody else that would be a 2nd/3rd rounder?

I think this is a topic that will come up in a couple weeks.

milkman
02-23-2012, 09:32 PM
The Jets are pretty friggen talented. I know the QB gets too much credit for wins and too much credit for losses but I think if you put a good QB on that team it makes it a power house team in the AFC.

I know Ryan thinks they have the talent to win it all. Generally a HC won't spout off unless he thinks his team has the talent to back it up.

Sanchize is still young and it'd be hard to pull the plug on him because they have won with him. That being said, you have to wonder if he's holding that team back....

Like I said, they are an aging group.

They had essentially a two year window.

milkman
02-23-2012, 09:34 PM
Here is a legit question.

I see NY as a more "real" possibility for a landing spot for PM.

If that happens and they cut Sanchez (which is a real possibility...here is whats left in his contract: 2012: $8.5 million (+ $2.75 million roster bonus due 3/28), 2013: $4.525 million

What kind of offer do you think he would garner?...also, would you rather sign a guy like him or draft a guy like Foles or somebody else that would be a 2nd/3rd rounder?

I think this is a topic that will come up in a couple weeks.

I was a big Sanchez guy coming out, but he hasn't shown any progress in three years.

I'd have little to no interest in him at this point.

BossChief
02-23-2012, 09:35 PM
thanks

RustShack
02-23-2012, 09:36 PM
Maybe Zorn could do something with Sanchez. Do/did the Jets even have good coaches on the offensive side? I know Schottenhimer was his OC, not sure how long though.