PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Rumor: Redskins prepared to offer at least 4 picks for the #2 pick.


Pestilence
02-26-2012, 10:38 AM
www.Rotoworld.com

Teams sources tell NBC Philadelphia's Howard Eskin the Redskins are prepared to offer the Rams their top three 2012 picks and "at least" their 2013 first-round pick to move up to draft Baylor QB Robert Griffin III.

If true, it would be a positively Ricky Williams-ian haul for the Rams, who saw the value of their No. 2 pick increase even further on Sunday when Griffin was unofficially timed at a blazing 4.38 in the 40 at the Combine. Eskin's report comes two days after SI.com's Tony Pauline reported the Rams have engaged in "exploratory talks" with the Redskins about a swap. Source: Howard Eskin on Twitter

Mr_Tomahawk
02-26-2012, 10:40 AM
I'd do it...

Bump
02-26-2012, 10:42 AM
I would trade the whole thing for RG3

tk13
02-26-2012, 10:42 AM
I bet we see even more insane rumors than this as the draft approaches. The hype for Griffin is going to be off the charts. Just wait until he has his pro day.

SNR
02-26-2012, 10:44 AM
Romeo would have a beer with him. Does that count for something?

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 10:54 AM
What did you start Romeo

SPATCH
02-26-2012, 10:58 AM
FUCK IT

They can have him

RINGLEADER
02-26-2012, 10:58 AM
I would trade the whole thing for RG3

If true, the Redskins are giving around 3500 points in draft trade value (if you go by the old draft pick value chart). For the Chiefs to do the same thing they'd need to give up the entire 2012 draft PLUS the first and second from next year. If this report is true I just don't see how KC has the firepower unless you do a deal where Carr is somehow thrown into the mix which seems unlikely (and even then you're still looking at all of this year's meaningful picks as well as next year's 1).

philfree
02-26-2012, 10:59 AM
I just heard Griffin say that Harbaugh recruited him for Standford. Luck and Griffin? Or was it Luck or Griffin?

okcchief
02-26-2012, 11:00 AM
Trade for RGIII and max out your cap space filling other holes with free agents. You will sell out and be better off you cheap bastards! No way in hell they do it. It's not the Patriot way.

Mr. Laz
02-26-2012, 11:01 AM
rumor started by the Rams, no doubt.

FAX
02-26-2012, 11:01 AM
Wow. That's expensive.

FAX

bricks
02-26-2012, 11:01 AM
**** IT

They can have him

Exactly.

No eff'n way would I trade the entire draft, and sacrifice a bit of next years draft to get him.

ArrowheadHawk
02-26-2012, 11:01 AM
Chiefs can't compete with that.

bricks
02-26-2012, 11:03 AM
Trade for RGIII and max out your cap space filling other holes with free agents. You will sell out and be better off you cheap bastards! No way in hell they do it. It's not the Patriot way.

They'd be stupid to trade their whole draft for just one player.

It's not worth it. I don't care how good he is. You don't sacrifice the whole draft.

Mr. Laz
02-26-2012, 11:06 AM
sign Bowe

tag/trade Carr

use the 1st round pick you get from trading Carr to trade up

our 1st
1st from Carr
2nd round pick
2nd round pick in 2013

:shrug:

two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks = 4 picks

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 11:09 AM
RGIII, Peyton Manning and scrub draft picks
:whackit: Skin fans

RJ
02-26-2012, 11:10 AM
Damn. Makes me wonder what the Colts could get for that other guy.

Bwana
02-26-2012, 11:14 AM
If anyone is crazy enough to do this, it would be Dan Snyder.

tk13
02-26-2012, 11:14 AM
Damn. Makes me wonder what the Colts could get for that other guy.

Probably off the charts. I'm not sure the points chart even applies to these guys. I think if the Rams can get a bidding war going the chart is going out the window.

I actually wonder if Bill Polian would've considered it if he was still there... he liked to trade back. But I think there are scouts who are going to like Griffin over Luck by the time the draft rolls around. Griffin is such a freak athlete.

whoman69
02-26-2012, 11:17 AM
Will the Rams turn this into gold like the Cowboys did? Actually the Cowboys got more, but this should help out the Rams immensely.

KCtotheSB
02-26-2012, 11:20 AM
Scott Pioli > Dan Snyder

Enjoy being shit, Washington.

bevischief
02-26-2012, 11:20 AM
:popcorn:

The butthurt is just beginning....

DaWolf
02-26-2012, 11:29 AM
I just heard Griffin say that Harbaugh recruited him for Standford. Luck and Griffin? Or was it Luck or Griffin?

I believe they already had Luck in the fold, so it would have been "and Griffin"...

Saccopoo
02-26-2012, 11:35 AM
Probably off the charts. I'm not sure the points chart even applies to these guys. I think if the Rams can get a bidding war going the chart is going out the window.

I actually wonder if Bill Polian would've considered it if he was still there... he liked to trade back. But I think there are scouts who are going to like Griffin over Luck by the time the draft rolls around. Griffin is such a freak athlete.

Let's not devalue the athleticism of Andrew Luck.

At 6'5", 235 lbs., he basically put up the same combine numbers that Cam Newton did last year and he was close in most and beat RGIII in some of them this year. (Other than that ridiculous 40 time.)

If Griffin is a freak athlete at 6'2" 1/2" and 220 lbs. because of his combine numbers, the same has to be said of Luck.

Saccopoo
02-26-2012, 11:41 AM
Will the Rams turn this into gold like the Cowboys did? Actually the Cowboys got more, but this should help out the Rams immensely.

The Cowboys didn't get more, they made the most out of the picks that they received.

The Herschel Walker deal was only one-sided because the Cowboys picked guys that ended up being huge contributing factors in their dynastic run in the early '90's.

The Vikings were pretty well compensated in that trade.

This is shaping up to be a Ricky Williams/Mike Ditka insaneo level deal.

And that price is way too high for any team, other than the Redskins, who seem to rejoice in bat shit craziness. Remember, this is the team that gave Albert Haynesworth 100 million dollars to be a two gap plugger.

To acquire a franchise quarterback? With Crazy Mike and Dan Snyder pulling the strings on the deal? Yikes.

tk13
02-26-2012, 11:44 AM
Let's not devalue the athleticism of Andrew Luck.

At 6'5", 235 lbs., he basically put up the same combine numbers that Cam Newton did last year and he was close in most and beat RGIII in some of them this year. (Other than that ridiculous 40 time.)

If Griffin is a freak athlete at 6'2" 1/2" and 220 lbs. because of his combine numbers, the same has to be said of Luck.


Luck is a great athlete. I wasn't saying otherwise. Griffin can flat out fly on a football field though.

I personally would take Luck over Griffin 100 times out of 100. But Griffin can flat out fly on a football field. He has Vick/Cunningham kind of ability.

Epic Fail 007
02-26-2012, 12:01 PM
I would trade the whole thing for RG3

Stupid move

Brock
02-26-2012, 12:11 PM
The Cowboys didn't get more, they made the most out of the picks that they received..

Uhhh.....

Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1990
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1990
Minnesota's 6th round pick in 1990
Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1991
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1991
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1992
Minnesota's 3rd round pick in 1992
Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1993

Marco Polo
02-26-2012, 12:13 PM
Minnesota Vikings received
RB Herschel Walker
Dallas's 3rd round pick - 1990 (54) (Mike Jones)
San Diego's 5th round pick - 1990 (116) (Reggie Thornton)
Dallas's 10th round pick - 1990 (249) (Pat Newman)
Dallas's 3rd round pick - 1991 (68) (Jake Reed)

Dallas Cowboys received
LB Jesse Solomon
LB David Howard
CB Issiac Holt
RB Darrin Nelson (traded to San Diego after he refused to report to Dallas)
DE Alex Stewart
Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1990 (21) (traded this pick along with pick (81) for pick (17) from Pittsburgh to draft Emmitt Smith)
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1990 (47) (Alexander Wright)
Minnesota's 6th round pick in 1990 (158) (traded to New Orleans, who drafted James Williams)
Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1991 (conditional) - (12) (Alvin Harper)
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1991 (conditional) - (38) (Dixon Edwards)
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1992 (conditional) - (37) (Darren Woodson)
Minnesota's 3rd round pick in 1992 (conditional) - (71) (traded to New England, who drafted Kevin Turner)
Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1993 (conditional) - (13) (traded to Philadelphia Eagles, and then to the Houston Oilers, who drafted Brad Hopkins)[1]

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 12:15 PM
They'd be stupid to trade their whole draft for just one player.

It's not worth it. I don't care how good he is. You don't sacrifice the whole draft.

This strategy has worked so well for us. It's been 19 years since we've had a playoff win. Do you understand that by the time next year rolls around it means TWO DECADES will have passed since we've last won a playoff game. TWO DECADES. Think about it. Do you remember what we had TWO DECADES ago when we last won a playoff game? That's right. A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK. Do you know what has happened in the NFL since our last playoff victory TWO DECADES ago? The NFL rules became a lot more friendly towards FRANCHISE QUARTERBACKS. You can keep your Tyson Jacksons and your Dexter McClusters and "wisely" horde those picks all you want. Me? I want me a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK so that the Chiefs can win not only playoff games but a (few) Superbowl(s) as well.

Bewbies
02-26-2012, 12:47 PM
If we move up there will be player or players involved..

I still think if Flynn goes to Cleveland nobody is going up to 2 to draft him.

Setsuna
02-26-2012, 12:49 PM
This strategy has worked so well for us. It's been 19 years since we've had a playoff win. Do you understand that by the time next year rolls around it means TWO DECADES will have passed since we've last won a playoff game. TWO DECADES. Think about it. Do you remember what we had TWO DECADES ago when we last won a playoff game? That's right. A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK. Do you know what has happened in the NFL since our last playoff victory TWO DECADES ago? The NFL rules became a lot more friendly towards FRANCHISE QUARTERBACKS. You can keep your Tyson Jacksons and your Dexter McClusters and "wisely" horde those picks all you want. Me? I want me a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK so that the Chiefs can win not only playoff games but a (few) Superbowl(s) as well.

Well said Elvis. Anyone who says they wouldn't trade their whole draft for Tom Brady are retards. Redskins essentially are ok, and they just need a franchise QB. Maybe some DBs, but they're fine after that.

HoneyBadger
02-26-2012, 01:01 PM
Remember when some people on here wanted this team to win meaningless games?

They could have blown one season to be set for years.

Setsuna
02-26-2012, 01:05 PM
Oh yeah whoever said Luck is comparable to Newton is retarded. Cam wasn't even trying at the combine. Don't be retarded, he knew for a fact he'd be #1 the overall pick and he is the type of person to not try because he knows he won't be punished for it.

Fritz88
02-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Stupid move

I agree with eric007, yes I said it.

Marcellus
02-26-2012, 01:16 PM
If Snyder is willing to do it, then that pretty much seals the fact it is a bad idea. Dude is a habitual bad decision maker.

bricks
02-26-2012, 01:18 PM
This strategy has worked so well for us. It's been 19 years since we've had a playoff win. Do you understand that by the time next year rolls around it means TWO DECADES will have passed since we've last won a playoff game. TWO DECADES. Think about it. Do you remember what we had TWO DECADES ago when we last won a playoff game? That's right. A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK. Do you know what has happened in the NFL since our last playoff victory TWO DECADES ago? The NFL rules became a lot more friendly towards FRANCHISE QUARTERBACKS. You can keep your Tyson Jacksons and your Dexter McClusters and "wisely" horde those picks all you want. Me? I want me a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK so that the Chiefs can win not only playoff games but a (few) Superbowl(s) as well.

I understand your point. And I want a QB just as bad as you do.

But in no way am I fan of them trading the whole entire draft for just one player who doesn't assure anything. That's just insane. I still think the Chiefs can address the QB position someway, somehow. Whether its through Manning, Tannehill, in the 2nd round, or possibly next years first rounder?

I understand the importance of having a QB, but I think the rest of the team needs and the draft are just as equally important. If trading up for one player hinders their chances of improving the rest of the team for the future, then the risk is far too much of a burden. I'd rather see them improve the rest of the team while addressing the QB position at the same time.

The consequences of risky moves like these are way too hard to bear and can possibly set the franchise back? Thats why Im not inclined to seeing them making these type of moves. I'd rather see them take a chance on Manning instead. Yeah he is risk too. But the risk is far less severe. If he works out, great. If he doesn't, then at least they didn't sacrifice their whole future?

I more of a fan of seeing them taking a smart approach. Or, a more realistic approach...(i.e, sign Manning, and draft a QB either in the 1st or 2nd)...go from there and then build your team on top. Thats all Im saying.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 01:19 PM
Well said Elvis. Anyone who says they wouldn't trade their whole draft for Tom Brady are retards. Redskins essentially are ok, and they just need a franchise QB. Maybe some DBs, but they're fine after that.

LMAO

Well it looks like 31 GM's not only didn't trade up for Brady, but they passed on him at least five times too.

If only it were half as easy to find a franchise QB as this place makes it sound.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 01:22 PM
The Chiefs are even more screwed if they give up and entire draft + some and the QB is a bust. All franchise QB's have a lot around them, something that typically doesn't happen if you don't have a draft.

Fritz88
02-26-2012, 01:22 PM
Romeo would have a beer with him. Does that count for something?

Unsubstantiated. Romeo is on a strict diet and is not drinking beer.

GordonGekko
02-26-2012, 01:23 PM
This strategy has worked so well for us. It's been 19 years since we've had a playoff win. Do you understand that by the time next year rolls around it means TWO DECADES will have passed since we've last won a playoff game. TWO DECADES. Think about it. Do you remember what we had TWO DECADES ago when we last won a playoff game? That's right. A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK. Do you know what has happened in the NFL since our last playoff victory TWO DECADES ago? The NFL rules became a lot more friendly towards FRANCHISE QUARTERBACKS. You can keep your Tyson Jacksons and your Dexter McClusters and "wisely" horde those picks all you want. Me? I want me a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK so that the Chiefs can win not only playoff games but a (few) Superbowl(s) as well.


Damn.

Can't argue with this.

Trent Green I'd say was a pseudo franchise QB for us, he did a pretty good job. He just wasn't a 'winner'.

BigMeatballDave
02-26-2012, 01:29 PM
Oh yeah whoever said Luck is comparable to Newton is retarded. Cam wasn't even trying at the combine. Don't be retarded, he knew for a fact he'd be #1 the overall pick and he is the type of person to not try because he knows he won't be punished for it.

Save my post.

Luck will have a better career than Newton.

I said it.

Suck it, bitch :)

Marcellus
02-26-2012, 01:35 PM
Remember when some people on here wanted this team to win meaningless games?

They could have blown one season to be set for years.


What about the fact that what fans want has no bearing on how the players play or the end result?

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 01:38 PM
I'd rather get draft picks by trading off a player(Carr)
Then getting a player by trading draft picks(RGIII)
this game is fun

O.city
02-26-2012, 01:40 PM
IF the Chiefs were to give up that much, fine.


Until you get that guy at qb, it's been shown that you are essentially spinning your wheels, hoping to get lucky to win a SB.

Ask yourself this, if the Chiefs gave up this whole draft and a first rounder next year and took RGIII, what are they really losing?

I would almost argue that a he would be more important to the Chiefs success over the next 10 or 12 years than all those picks combined.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 01:49 PM
If true, the Redskins are giving around 3500 points in draft trade value (if you go by the old draft pick value chart). For the Chiefs to do the same thing they'd need to give up the entire 2012 draft PLUS the first and second from next year. If this report is true I just don't see how KC has the firepower unless you do a deal where Carr is somehow thrown into the mix which seems unlikely (and even then you're still looking at all of this year's meaningful picks as well as next year's 1).

The Chiefs have to do more than trade away the entire draft to match Wasington:

Match:
1st round 2012 (#11)
2nd round 2012 (#44)
3rd round 2012 (#75)
1st round 2013 (TBD)
2nd round 2013 (TBD)
That's a 435 point differential (Chiefs stagger between #11 and #12 picks all draft)

The rest of the draft, the Chiefs have 149.6 points (factoring in Jarrad Page 7th rounder). That means even if the Chiefs give away the entire 2012 draft + 2013 first and second round, they are still 285.4 points behind. That means the Chiefs have to give up pretty much a 2013 third round pick as well in order to make up for that difference.

So in order to match Washington, our trade comp needs to be:
Entire 2012 draft (8 picks)
2013 draft: first round, second round, third round

OR

1st, 2nd, 3rd in 2012
1st, 2nd, 3rd in 2013
Likely a 2nd rounder in 2014

That's assuming we use the old trade chart (there's no doubt that trade value went up a ton in 2012). That's not even factoring in that Washington will be bad in 2012 even with RGIII, whereas the Chiefs could be a top 10 team. So even for 2013 picks, I'm sure STL believes the Chiefs will be 10 or so picks behind Washington.

I think it will cost us AT LEAST 3 firsts, 2 seconds, and 2 thirds to match this offer.

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 01:53 PM
The Rams may have to trade back a high $ player to make cap room
if you can do that

O.city
02-26-2012, 01:54 PM
Only way we get RGIII is if the other teams fill the qb thru free agency and he falls to us.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 01:56 PM
The Rams may have to trade back a high $ player to make cap room
if you can do that

You are assuming that a team like the Rams is more interested in an expensive 27 year old who can give you five years, than a 22 year old who can give you 10 years.

It doesn't matter if Carr or Bowe are sure things. The Rams will realistically be competitive 2-3 years from now. So by the time, they're competitive, Bowe/Carr will be nearing the downside of their careers.

O.city
02-26-2012, 01:57 PM
I think he was saying the Rams will ahve to trade one of their high money players.

Fritz88
02-26-2012, 01:57 PM
I've given Polio a lot of benefit of the doubt; however, if he goes all in for RGIII, I will give up on Polio.

If RGIII lands to us, then okay, but to give up this much for him? No thanks.

I'd be fine doing that with Luck, but not with RGIII.

Beans.

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 01:58 PM
I'm wondering if taking Stephen Jackon's(or other) salary off their hands no matter the trade partner is legal
You give us(Rams) 2 firsts, we kick back a high dollar employee to you edit:Freeing cap space for the Rams

L.A. Chieffan
02-26-2012, 02:02 PM
Lol ridiculous. Even luck isn't worth that.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 02:04 PM
I could see us and would love to trade up for RG3 IF he falls down a little. But there is no way we should give what it would take to get to #2.

Easy 6
02-26-2012, 02:06 PM
If Snyder is willing to do it, then that pretty much seals the fact it is a bad idea. Dude is a habitual bad decision maker.

.

O.city
02-26-2012, 02:07 PM
If the Skins and Browns signed a free agent qb, thus taking them out of this race, I'd think about trading up ahead of the Phins. That would be the only situation though.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 02:07 PM
IF the Chiefs were to give up that much, fine.


Until you get that guy at qb, it's been shown that you are essentially spinning your wheels, hoping to get lucky to win a SB.

Ask yourself this, if the Chiefs gave up this whole draft and a first rounder next year and took RGIII, what are they really losing?

I would almost argue that a he would be more important to the Chiefs success over the next 10 or 12 years than all those picks combined.

There are about 5-6 QBs that come into the league over a 10-year span who are so good, they can win games even if their supporting cast is bad. Even Eli... some question if he's a pure Super Bowl QB without his stellar supporting cast. You give him an average cast and is he a Super Bowl winner?

If RGIII is the wrong QB and you trade away 3 drafts for him, you set the franchise back maybe 6 years. 3 years as you develop him. During those 3 years, your veterans will decline or go elsewhere and you probably bring in less than a handful of players from the draft to replace them so in 2015... you're probably rebuilding the supporting cast from scratch. If RGIII is good enough (but not Peyton Manning elite), then you leave him a 3-year window to win. If RGIII doesn't win a Super Bowl by 2015, suddenly, Bowe, Charles, Hali, etc... start to hit a decline. And again, no draft picks to replace them.

While I get that you have to take chances, people are seriously underestimating the risk of gambling everything on a drafted QB to not just be good, but to be in that ultra-rare class of elite QBs.

L.A. Chieffan
02-26-2012, 02:13 PM
I like rg3 but I saw the dude get knocked out cold by a 2nd rate college safety. What's gonna happen when its a guy like JPP?

-King-
02-26-2012, 02:14 PM
Damn.

Can't argue with this.

Trent Green I'd say was a pseudo franchise QB for us, he did a pretty good job. He just wasn't a 'winner'.

In what way wasn't Trent Green a winner? He would have won superbowlS if he just had an average defense. A defense forces just one punt and we would have won it in 2003.

O.city
02-26-2012, 02:15 PM
Sorry zilla, shoudl have made it more clear, my statement was meant to say that I would trade picks if he fell a little bit, as the amount would decrease.


There really isn't any way to justify trading what you would have to to get to 2 at this point.

MotherfuckerJones
02-26-2012, 02:16 PM
If Pioli would sign Bowe already and tag Carr to trade him to Rams plus picks, maybe we could get it done

O.city
02-26-2012, 02:17 PM
No;

Easy 6
02-26-2012, 02:19 PM
In what way wasn't Trent Green a winner? He would have won superbowlS if he just had an average defense. A defense forces just one punt and we would have won it in 2003.

I agree with this, he WAS good enough to win it all with the offense he lead.

Those offensive players had every right to rise up in a fiery anger & murder Peterson & Vermeil.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 02:23 PM
Sorry zilla, shoudl have made it more clear, my statement was meant to say that I would trade picks if he fell a little bit, as the amount would decrease.


There really isn't any way to justify trading what you would have to to get to 2 at this point.

I agree. Just pointing out for those who say we should trade multiple first day picks. It isn't just a big gamble. It is gamble that can kill a franchise for 6+ years.

</post>
02-26-2012, 02:23 PM
One more easy reason the franchise tag is more valuable to use on Carr.

1.) Tag Car
2.) Trade him to the Cowboys for the 14th pick
3.) Trade 11th (1,250 pts), 14th (1,100 pts), 44th (460 pts) for the Rams 2nd (2,600 pts).

RustShack
02-26-2012, 02:26 PM
I like rg3 but I saw the dude get knocked out cold by a 2nd rate college safety. What's gonna happen when its a guy like JPP?

Iowa State held him to his lowest passing totals this year if that makes you feel better.

Chocolate Hog
02-26-2012, 02:29 PM
One more easy reason the franchise tag is more valuable to use on Carr.

1.) Tag Car
2.) Trade him to the Cowboys for the 14th pick
3.) Trade 11th (1,250 pts), 14th (1,100 pts), 44th (460 pts) for the Rams 2nd (2,600 pts).

Yeah tag Carr and let Bowe walk. That's fucking stupid.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 02:33 PM
They'd be stupid to trade their whole draft for just one player.

It's not worth it. I don't care how good he is. You don't sacrifice the whole draft.

Why? We are only giving up picks 2-7. Outside of picks 2 and 3 how many times do picks from 4-7 pan out? There is a lower rate of success in those picks. Are they not worth a franchise QB? I think too much value is placed on worthless picks than what could be had with those picks.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 02:36 PM
Why? We are only giving up picks 2-7. Outside of picks 2 and 3 how many times do picks from 4-7 pan out? There is a lower rate of success in those picks. Are they not worth a franchise QB? I think too much value is placed on worthless picks than what could be had with those picks.

Read my post above.

If the rumor is true about Washington's trade compensation, then the Chiefs will have to give up the entire 2012 draft, the first and second round picks in 2013, and likely at least a first or second in the 2014 draft.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 02:38 PM
Yeah tag Carr and let Bowe walk. That's fucking stupid.

Then we can just sign Randy Moss! o:-)

tredadda
02-26-2012, 02:40 PM
Read my post above.

If the rumor is true about Washington's trade compensation, then the Chiefs will have to give up the entire 2012 draft, the first and second round picks in 2013, and likely at least a first or second in the 2014 draft.

That is significantly different than giving up the 2012 draft. Doing that will not set this franchise back 6+ years. Your scenario by giving up this draft plus picks in 2013 and 2014 would though.

</post>
02-26-2012, 02:41 PM
Yeah tag Carr and let Bowe walk. That's ****ing stupid.

Posted this in the other thread. It's a better value proposition to just overpay for Bowe. Who the hell cares? We can eat a front-loaded contract and we gain the value of the extra pick from tagging Carr. If the report is true, we already know the Cowboys are willing to go nuts for him.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 02:48 PM
That is significantly different than giving up the 2012 draft. Doing that will not set this franchise back 6+ years. Your scenario by giving up this draft plus picks in 2013 and 2014 would though.

I'm not sure if we're agreeing with or disagreeing with each other.

But essentially, the 4th through 7th round is equal to about one low 3rd round pick. So giving up the entire 2012 draft alone does very little to add sweeteners to our trade offer. The sundae is in the first-second-third round picks. And the 2012 picks are the ones that matter most, because those are guaranteed top 11 picks for that round whereas in 2013, they could end up being the #25 pick.

I doubt there's any scenario where we don't give up at least 4 first day picks. I bet we have to give up 5-6.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 02:53 PM
I'm not sure if we're agreeing with or disagreeing with each other.

But essentially, the 4th through 7th round is equal to about one low 3rd round pick. So giving up the entire 2012 draft alone does very little to add sweeteners to our trade offer. The sundae is in the first-second-third round picks. And the 2012 picks are the ones that matter most, because those are guaranteed top 11 picks for that round whereas in 2013, they could end up being the #25 pick.

I doubt there's any scenario where we don't give up at least 4 first day picks. I bet we have to give up 5-6.

We are basically agreeing. I think we need to see if Washington brings in Peyton or not before we figure out what it will take to move to #2.

Mr. Flopnuts
02-26-2012, 02:57 PM
FUCK IT

They can have him

Yep. The only people ready to trade 3-5 years worth of picks for him are fucking morons.

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 02:58 PM
Why? We are only giving up picks 2-7. Outside of picks 2 and 3 how many times do picks from 4-7 pan out? There is a lower rate of success in those picks. Are they not worth a franchise QB? I think too much value is placed on worthless picks than what could be had with those picks.

THen why would the Rams want them

Mr. Laz
02-26-2012, 03:01 PM
Yeah tag Carr and let Bowe walk. That's ****ing stupid.

people always bitch about how the QB position is so important but they wet themselves as soon as it comes time to pay for it.

There are plenty of WR's out on the market ... we can sign one.

If letting Bowe walk and tag/trade Carr means we get RGIII then i would think you should be happy about it.


who knows ... Bowe's price might drop once he gets out there on the market anyway.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 03:03 PM
THen why would the Rams want them

They have far, far more holes to fill than us.

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 03:04 PM
How can they have more holes & so little cap space
Is Bradford & Long bleeding them dry

O.city
02-26-2012, 03:05 PM
They have basically been drafting in the top 5 for the last what 6 years?

wazu
02-26-2012, 03:06 PM
We should call the Redskins and offer them a franchise QB for a lot less.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 03:08 PM
How can they have more holes & so little cap space
Is Bradford & Long bleeding them dry

Have you seen Bradford's contract?

O.city
02-26-2012, 03:08 PM
Some of these qb teams are gonna fill that spot with a free agent. We just have to wait and see.


I would love to see the Browns sign Flynn, the Skins sign Manning, and the Dolphins sign Orton but one of those teams is gonna just sit tight and draft RGIII.

This is a shitty year for the Chiefs to need a qb when it comes to the draft. Just pick up Manning, tag Bowe, and have a great draft.

Mr. Laz
02-26-2012, 03:10 PM
Just pick up Manning, tag/trade Carr,Sign a WR in FA and have a great draft.
FYP

bricks
02-26-2012, 03:11 PM
Why? We are only giving up picks 2-7. Outside of picks 2 and 3 how many times do picks from 4-7 pan out? There is a lower rate of success in those picks. Are they not worth a franchise QB? I think too much value is placed on worthless picks than what could be had with those picks.

True.

But then there could also be a flipside to that. Sometimes, teams end up having good drafts and can possibly score on 3 or 4 players.

What if that happens?

It comes down to this, would you rather see a whole draft pissed down the drain all for the sake of sacrificing it for one player?

Or, would you rather see them have a good draft, address maybe 3 or 4 positions and still have the possibility to address the QB in FA.

Hypothetically, lets say, they score on 3 or 4 players in this years draft that can contribute to the teams future.And at the same time, the Chiefs can address the QB position in FA w/ Manning lets say. I'd rather take that.

If they trade up, they'd be at risk of possibly losing out on 4 key players who can contribute to building your team. And all for what? for the price of one?

Sorry, I just think its too risky.

Valiant
02-26-2012, 03:11 PM
I understand your point. And I want a QB just as bad as you do.

But in no way am I fan of them trading the whole entire draft for just one player who doesn't assure anything. That's just insane. I still think the Chiefs can address the QB position someway, somehow. Whether its through Manning, Tannehill, in the 2nd round, or possibly next years first rounder?

I understand the importance of having a QB, but I think the rest of the team needs and the draft are just as equally important. If trading up for one player hinders their chances of improving the rest of the team for the future, then the risk is far too much of a burden. I'd rather see them improve the rest of the team while addressing the QB position at the same time.

The consequences of risky moves like these are way too hard to bear and can possibly set the franchise back? Thats why Im not inclined to seeing them making these type of moves. I'd rather see them take a chance on Manning instead. Yeah he is risk too. But the risk is far less severe. If he works out, great. If he doesn't, then at least they didn't sacrifice their whole future?

I more of a fan of seeing them taking a smart approach. Or, a more realistic approach...(i.e, sign Manning, and draft a QB either in the 1st or 2nd)...go from there and then build your team on top. Thats all Im saying.

Can you set the Chiefs back any further?? They have not done shit for a generation almost.. Personally at the rate we are going we will finally get a decent QB but wont have shit around him cause they are all too old..

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 03:11 PM
Give us your #2 & your bloated Haynesworth type contracts
will give you the #11 & cap freedom!!!!!!!!!!!
Then draft Blackmon

O.city
02-26-2012, 03:14 PM
Who are all these free agent wr's you are speaking of Laz? I'm too lazy too look.

Mr. Laz
02-26-2012, 03:16 PM
2012 NFL Free Agent Receivers
By: Roshan Bhagat

Vincent Jackson (SD) - Partially due to his actions and injuries in the past, the Chargers have been reluctant to sign Vincent Jackson to a long-term extension. However, after a third 1000-yard season with the Chargers, GM AJ Smith and Head Coach Norv Turner have expressed interest in keeping Jackson in San Diego for the long haul. If the Chargers don't have him locked up prior to the start of free agency, he may very easily leave on a tempting offer elsewhere.

Wes Welker (NE) - Welker has averaged 111 receptions and 1221 yards over the last 5 seasons, since joining New England. It's safe to call Welker the best slot receiver in the league and one of the most valuable pieces to the Patriots' offense. During Super Bowl week he brushed off questions regarding his impending free agency, but it's a foregone conclusion that he'll remain in Foxborough.

Reggie Wayne (IND) - After missing the 1000-yard mark for the first time since 2003, Wayne finds himself a free agent. All of the talk out of Indy has been on Peyton Manning and his costly option The Colts have been an organization takes care of their own over the last decade, but for a team expected to enter rebuilding, it'll be interesting to see if that philosophy changes for in the transition. Many expect Wayne to be playing elsewhere next season.

DeSean Jackson (PHI) - Jackson is a great weapon for the Eagles offense that relies upon big plays. Unfortunately, Jackson's ego and sense of self-worth appears to have created a rift in negotiations thus far. Jackson will probably want to be paid as a top wide receiver, which he may not get from the organization after some his comments and actions of several months ago. To be fair, his play doesn't warrant it either.

Dwayne Bowe (KC) - One subpar season aside, Dwayne Bowe has emerged into the number one receiver the offense needs. He's a big body and a good route runner with a large catching radius. His most impressive attribute is his body of work around the goal line. He's a complete mismatch with the fade, slant, and back shoulder passes and has shown the propensity to make the acrobatic catches on numerous occasions. If he can't be re-signed prior to free agency, he's probably the frontrunner ahead of Brandon Carr for the franchise tag.

Marques Colston (NO) - When healthy, Colston is a match-up nightmare for any corner. He's an incredibly physical, sure-handed receiver and a polished route runner. When he's available, he brings another dimension to the Saints offense that none of their other talented weapons possess. Though Brees has proven capable of running the offense without him, they're even more dangerous with him. He'll most likely remain with the Saints.

Steve Johnson (BUF) - Still working on his meager rookie salary, Johnson figures to be a big part of the Bills' long term plans. On a team with few superstars, the Bills can afford to lock up Johnson long term and maintain an effective passing attack. Though the sides don't appear to have begun extension talks, the Bills also have the option of using the franchise tag on him if they can't reach a deal before free agency.

Brandon Lloyd (STL) - Lloyd quickly established himself as the Rams' top receiver after a trade landed him in St. Louis midway through the year. His explosive downfield ability and large catching radius make him a legitimate target to help Sam Bradford. The Rams will make a strong play to retain him and Lloyd has expressed interest in playing for coach Jeff Fisher.

Robert Meachem (NO) - Meachem is one of the younger receivers that could be a nice pick-up for an offense with a larger workload to offer. He's a good downfield threat and has nice instincts in the red zone. For a team with Drew Brees, Marques Colston, and Carl Nicks as free agents, the organization has some work to do to bring back all of their key guys.

Mario Manningham (NYG) - With Manningham behind breakout star Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks, the Giants have found a nice threesome. Though the Giants have done a great job of developing players at the position, they would like to see some continuity for Manning. Unfortunately for them, other teams may look to give Manningham a promotion into the starting lineup and a bigger contract that goes along with it.

Laurent Robinson (DAL) - After spending some time in Atlanta, St. Louis, and San Diego, it didn't take Robinson a lot of time to find chemistry with Tony Romo in Dallas in his fifth year as a pro. He exploded on the scene replacing and playing behind Dez Bryant and Miles Austin in the lineup at various points throughout the season, accumulating 858 yards and 11 touchdowns in 14 games. Though Robinson has reaffirmed that he wants to remain in Dallas, it may be hard for the Cowboys to pay him as a third receiver if he receives serious attention on the open market.

Mike Wallace (PIT) - Restricted - No receiver in the league forces safeties back like Wallace. His deep speed is second to none on the perimeter and he capitalizes on it with the ability to run those vertical routes proficiently. He's improving in other areas of his game and is an extremely valuable piece to the Steelers' offense. Keep in mind the highest Restricted tender would only net the Steelers a first round pick, which Wallace is certainly worth.



The Rest:
Early Doucet (ARZ)
Harry Douglas (ATL)
Eric Weems (ATL)
Ruvell Martin (BUF)
Roscoe Parrish (BUF)
Legedu Naanee (CAR)
Roy Williams (CHI)
Andre Caldwell (CIN)
Jerome Simpson (CIN)
Eddie Royal (DEN)
Rashied Davis (DET)
Maurice Stovall (DET)
Braylon Edwards (FA)
Bryant Johnson (HOU)
Pierre Garcon (IND)
Anthony Gonzalez (IND)
Jerheme Urban (KC)
Devin Aromashodu (MIN)
Bernard Berrian (MIN)
Greg Camarillo (MIN)
Deion Branch (NE)
Matt Slater (NE)
Courtney Roby (NO)
Domenik Hixon (NYG)
Devin Thomas (NYG)
Plaxico Burress (NYJ)
TJ Houshmandzadeh (OAK)
Derek Hagan (OAK)
Chaz Schilens (OAK)
Steve Smith (PHI)
Jerricho Cotchery (PIT)
Patrick Crayton (SD)
Ted Ginn (SF)
Josh Morgan (SF)
Mark Clayton (STL)
Mike Sims-Walker (STL)
Micheal Spurlock (TB)
Donnie Avery (TEN)
Kevin Curtis (TEN)
Lavelle Hawkins (TEN)
David Anderson (WAS)
Donte' Stallworth (WAS)
Stephen Williams (ARZ) - Exclusive Rights
Jordan Norwood (CLE) - Exclusive Rights
Jesse Holley (DAL) - Exclusive Rights
Kevin Ogletree (DAL) - Restricted
Stefan Logan (DET) - Restricted
Matt Willis (DEN) - Restricted
Danny Amendola (STL) - Restricted
Dominique Curry (STL) - Exclusive Rights
Preston Parker (TB) - Exclusive Rights

tredadda
02-26-2012, 03:16 PM
True.

But then there could also be a flipside to that. Sometimes, teams end up having good drafts and can possibly score on 3 or 4 players.

What if that happens?

It comes down to this, would you rather see a whole draft pissed down the drain all for the sake of sacrificing it for one player?

Or, would you rather see them have a good draft, address maybe 3 or 4 positions and still have the possibility to address the QB in FA.

Hypothetically, lets say, they score on 3 or 4 players in this years draft that can contribute to the teams future.And at the same time, the Chiefs can address the QB position in FA w/ Manning lets say. I'd rather take that.

If they trade up, they'd be at risk of possibly losing out on 4 key players who can contribute to building your team. And all for what? for the price of one?

Sorry, I just think its too risky.

Yes, when that position is QB. We have drafted practically every other position in the first round BUT QB since 1983. It has yielded us three playoff wins. I would rather gamble on a potential stud QB than keep trading back and playing it safe, which has never worked for us.

HoneyBadger
02-26-2012, 03:17 PM
What about the fact that what fans want has no bearing on how the players play or the end result?

Shh. Don't ruin my perfect world.

pr_capone
02-26-2012, 03:18 PM
Remember when some people on here wanted this team to win meaningless games?

They could have blown one season to be set for years.

I realize that HoneyBadger don't give a shit but HoneBadger is a fucking maroon.

ANY team that purposely tanks a season doesn't deserve to exist and should be abolished, blackballed, and dismissed from any professional league it plays in.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W42iiCcFbxE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

tredadda
02-26-2012, 03:19 PM
I realize that HoneyBadger don't give a shit but HoneBadger is a ****ing maroon.

ANY team that purposely tanks a season doesn't deserve to exist and should be abolished, blackballed, and dismissed from any professional league it plays in.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W42iiCcFbxE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tell that to Indy. To think they could have either picked up Garrard or Orton and didn't says alot.

Aries Walker
02-26-2012, 03:20 PM
Washington offering four picks for RGIII doesn't surprise me a bit. Redskins owner Dan "Kid With A New Toy" Snyder has a history of overbidding for the big name.

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 03:25 PM
I agree. Just pointing out for those who say we should trade multiple first day picks. It isn't just a big gamble. It is gamble that can kill a franchise for 6+ years.

We haven't won a playoff game in NINETEEN years. That isn' franchise killing?

Let me offer another sobering statistic: During Peyton Mannning's LIFE, yes, during this FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK's time on this earth, the Chiefs have an AVERAGE regular season record of 7-9.

You're worried about "killing" a franchise, yet the Chiefs have been the very definition of mediocrity since a future HALL OF FAME FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK popped out of his momma's womb. Why? They have followed your sage words of wisdom.

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 03:25 PM
I would have thought owning the rights to Peyton Manning would play more to Snyder
These trades happen as often as a 6th round QB turning into a HOFer
for a reason

O.city
02-26-2012, 03:27 PM
I could see Snyder paying out the wazoo for Manning.


I'm still thinking the Browns end up with RGIII.

Mr. Laz
02-26-2012, 03:33 PM
I could see Snyder paying out the wazoo for Manning.


I'm still thinking the Browns end up with RGIII.

If we want a quality then we are going to have be prepared to aggressively use our assets. Bowe and Carr are assets to be used via the franchise tag.

whichever player will draw most interest on the market should be tagged/traded.

We then use our abundance of salary cap to make up the difference.

it's basically buying another draft pick

The 12th and 14th pick of this year's draft is a good start if we want to trade up. Add a couple of 2nd round picks (2012 and 2013) and we might get up there for RGIII.

then we start bidding on WR's to get one to replace Bowe ... mabye even retain Bowe if he doesn't get the uber contract he's looking for.

or

use money to bid on Manning and Tag Bowe

maybe get Saturday to play center along with Manning

normal draft

HoneyBadger
02-26-2012, 03:33 PM
I realize that HoneyBadger don't give a shit but HoneBadger is a fucking maroon.

ANY team that purposely tanks a season doesn't deserve to exist and should be abolished, blackballed, and dismissed from any professional league it plays in.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W42iiCcFbxE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm almost positive many teams have done this before. I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 03:37 PM
Do Indy fans really think their will of Suck 4 Luck worked
& they still live in that shithole

J Diddy
02-26-2012, 03:55 PM
I'm almost positive many teams have done this before. I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

It is absolutely wrong and to think otherwise is moronic. Lots of people pay lots of money to watch their team play.

Bump
02-26-2012, 04:00 PM
They'd be stupid to trade their whole draft for just one player.

It's not worth it. I don't care how good he is. You don't sacrifice the whole draft.

ya, let's just never get a franchise QB. Because what we've been doing, boy it's working amiright?

HoneyBadger
02-26-2012, 04:13 PM
It is absolutely wrong and to think otherwise is moronic. Lots of people pay lots of money to watch their team play.

So at the end of the season, when a team has playoffs locked up, it isn't ok to sit the best players to prevent injuries? Because the fans did pay to watch the best players play.

whoman69
02-26-2012, 04:13 PM
I could see Snyder paying out the wazoo for Manning.


I'm still thinking the Browns end up with RGIII.

Being able to offer two firsts this year should put them in the driver's seat.

O.city
02-26-2012, 04:17 PM
Being able to offer two firsts this year should put them in the driver's seat.

It's been discussed on here, but what people are overlooking is the fact that the Browns can trade two first rounders to the Rams and allow them to stay high enough to get a blue chip prospect at a position of need.


The Chiefs can't do that. Therefor if the Browns are in the mix, the Chiefs would likely have to double what the Browns can give.

VikesFan
02-26-2012, 04:21 PM
The Redskins will never learn trading away all their draft picks almost every year

O.city
02-26-2012, 04:22 PM
I want to draft a young franchise sure fire quarterback in teh first round as much as anyone on the board.


But we just aren't in a spot to do that.

We are on the fringe of having the team built at every spot on the field. One great draft will really set this team. I know the thing to do is just give up as many picks as you have to to get to the top, but that really kills your team.

At this point, our best bet is to bring in a healthy P. Manning or Orton for a year and go for the guy next year.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 04:34 PM
We haven't won a playoff game in NINETEEN years. That isn' franchise killing?

Let me offer another sobering statistic: During Peyton Mannning's LIFE, yes, during this FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK's time on this earth, the Chiefs have an AVERAGE regular season record of 7-9.

You're worried about "killing" a franchise, yet the Chiefs have been the very definition of mediocrity since a future HALL OF FAME FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK popped out of his momma's womb. Why? They have followed your sage words of wisdom.

Peyton mannings are very very difficult to find. I'm talking about a qb so good he alone can carry a mediocre team to the super bowl. if you trade away all your future draft picks, that's what you're asking rgIII to be.

This franchise qb concept is getting out of control. unless we are monumentally lucky, even if we are aggressive, we won't get Brady or brees. We have to try to get a brees type qb, but we have to build our team as if the best we can get is Matt Ryan or a Joe flacco or a Philip rivers type qb. These guys are good qbs, but theyre bot going to get you to the super bowl unless you give them a very good supporting cast. Hell, even Eli might fall into that category.

Building around your qb to the point where for 2-3 years, you take away virtually every chance to bring in young talent is a really, really bad strategy.

AustinChief
02-26-2012, 04:36 PM
Surprised that no one has mentioned it.. but what about tagging and trading Carr to Tampa Bay for the #5 pick. With the #5 and #11 picks we could be serious contenders in any trade for the #2.

Nightfyre
02-26-2012, 04:38 PM
I think suitors for Carr could include the vikings, the bucs, the panthers at a minimum. I mean, just the broad base of interested teams could drive his value up, imo.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 04:40 PM
Surprised that no one has mentioned it.. but what about tagging and trading Carr to Tampa Bay for the #5 pick. With the #5 and $11 picks we could be serious contenders in any trade for the #2.

Because Tampa can draft Morris clayborne. And given how much Carr will get paid, clayborne will probably be twice as cheap.

I don't know why people think teams would rather sign an expensive veteran in the top 5 than a cheap young guy.

SNR
02-26-2012, 04:44 PM
Because Tampa can draft Morris clayborne. And given how much Carr will get paid, clayborne will probably be twice as cheap.

I don't know why people think teams would rather sign an expensive veteran in the top 5 than a cheap young guy.Throw in a 2nd rounder! That will make RGIII more attainable!

mikey23545
02-26-2012, 04:45 PM
We haven't won a playoff game in NINETEEN years. That isn' franchise killing?

Let me offer another sobering statistic: During Peyton Mannning's LIFE, yes, during this FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK's time on this earth, the Chiefs have an AVERAGE regular season record of 7-9.

You're worried about "killing" a franchise, yet the Chiefs have been the very definition of mediocrity since a future HALL OF FAME FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK popped out of his momma's womb. Why? They have followed your sage words of wisdom.

Hmm...I forget, how many draft picks did the Colts have to trade away to draft Peyton Manning?

Mr. Flopnuts
02-26-2012, 04:47 PM
You draft a franchise Qb when you have a top 5 pick. Or can at the least, reasonably move there. We had 2. Didn't happen. Oh well. You can gamble 1 really high pick on a franchise QB. Gambling 6+ is epically fucking stupid.

AustinChief
02-26-2012, 04:48 PM
Because Tampa can draft Morris clayborne. And given how much Carr will get paid, clayborne will probably be twice as cheap.

I don't know why people think teams would rather sign an expensive veteran in the top 5 than a cheap young guy.

...because Carr is a proven commodity... Clayborne is far far far from proven and could be a complete bust. I'm not saying Tampa will see it that way, but don't act like it's out of the realm of possibility.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 04:50 PM
...because Carr is a proven commodity... Clayborne is far far far from proven and could be a complete bust. I'm not saying Tampa will see it that way, but don't act like it's out of the realm of possibility.

This goes against everything anybody believes in. That you Build teams through the draft, not free agency. I can't remember the last time a team traded out of a top 5 pick so they could sign a free agent instead. Anybody remember? (and no, I am not talking about a trade down).

Chiefs Pantalones
02-26-2012, 04:54 PM
I think the Redskins are gonna make the necessary moves to get him and we won't be able to top it, nor will we try.

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 05:00 PM
Hmm...I forget, how many draft picks did the Colts have to trade away to draft Peyton Manning?

How many Super Bowls have the Colts had in Peyton Manning's lifetime? How many Super Bowl's have the Chiefs had in Peyton Manning's lifetime?

I don't care how many picks it takes. When you are talking about not winning Super Bowls within a players LIFETIME, you're doing something wrong.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 05:03 PM
ya, let's just never get a franchise QB. Because what we've been doing, boy it's working amiright?

Or we could just draft the franchise QB who falls down the first since they tend to be better than the ones drafted high.

mikey23545
02-26-2012, 05:07 PM
How many Super Bowls have the Colts had in Peyton Manning's lifetime? How many Super Bowl's have the Chiefs had in Peyton Manning's lifetime?

I don't care how many picks it takes. When you are talking about not winning Super Bowls within a players LIFETIME, you're doing something wrong.

Have you ever read a story about the idiots who on a long losing streak in Vegas, decide to take out a second mortgage on their house and put it all up on one bet to try to reecoup all their losses?...

Man, they're some real morons aren't they?

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 05:23 PM
Have you ever read a story about the idiots who on a long losing streak in Vegas, decide to take out a second mortgage on their house and put it all up on one bet to try to reecoup all their losses?...

Man, they're some real morons aren't they?

Apparently, you haven't heard the story about the idiots who have a "system" that will beat the house. They follow their "system" over and over and over and over and over again and yet they wonder why, over time, they keep losing, they keep losing, they keep losing. Sure, every once in a while they have a mini-spike, but they never recoup their losses. They are simply dumbfounded as to why, on average, they only win 7 out of 16 games-- and they NEVER win the jackpot....

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein <---moron, apparently

whoman69
02-26-2012, 05:52 PM
Apparently, you haven't heard the story about the idiots who have a "system" that will beat the house. They follow their "system" over and over and over and over and over again and yet they wonder why, over time, they keep losing, they keep losing, they keep losing. Sure, every once in a while they have a mini-spike, but they never recoup their losses. They are simply dumbfounded as to why, on average, they only win 7 out of 16 games-- and they NEVER win the jackpot....

I get it, you're talking about the Chiefs. Slick.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 06:09 PM
Apparently, you haven't heard the story about the idiots who have a "system" that will beat the house. They follow their "system" over and over and over and over and over again and yet they wonder why, over time, they keep losing, they keep losing, they keep losing. Sure, every once in a while they have a mini-spike, but they never recoup their losses. They are simply dumbfounded as to why, on average, they only win 7 out of 16 games-- and they NEVER win the jackpot....

There are 5-6 players in the league right now who are "franchise QBs." When I say franchise, I mean a QB who can carry a mediocre team to the Super Bowl. Rodgers, Big Ben, Brady, Brees, Peyton (who is slipping out of that group). Arguably Eli, though it's debatable if he could do this without the very good Giants team that surrounds him. That's consistent with every generation. At most, you typically only have 5 who fall in that category.

Let's look at 1998-2010 (skipped the last 3 drafts, because they haven't had enough time to develop into franchise QBs yet). 32 first round QBs drafted during that time. If you count Eli, that means you have a 4 in 32 chance to draft a franchise QB with a first round pick (16% chance, for those counting).

Like I said, if you're monumentally lucky, you end up with a Peyton QB. Luck is probably that guy. If you do well, you end up with Matt Ryan. RGIII is probably more Ryan than he is Luck. If I'm Peyton Manning, sure, I don't care if we bring no young talent in the next 3 years. If I'm Matt Ryan, I need those next 3 drafts to put my team over the top. Betting on the 20% chance you get Peyton instead of building a team around the 80% chance you get Matt Ryan is a very, very bad calculated decision.

mikey23545
02-26-2012, 06:09 PM
Apparently, you haven't heard the story about the idiots who have a "system" that will beat the house. They follow their "system" over and over and over and over and over again and yet they wonder why, over time, they keep losing, they keep losing, they keep losing. Sure, every once in a while they have a mini-spike, but they never recoup their losses. They are simply dumbfounded as to why, on average, they only win 7 out of 16 games-- and they NEVER win the jackpot....

Apparently you never heard of building a fortune through hard work rather than moving to Vegas, and think the only "winners" in the world bought a lottery ticket to get to where they are...

SNR
02-26-2012, 06:49 PM
This Vegas analogy is fucking retarded. Who started it anyway?

Ohh... mikey. Makes sense now.

Wallcrawler
02-26-2012, 07:13 PM
As bad as this team needs a franchise QB, theres no way you can justify blowing an entire draft and part of another on just one player.

He could turn out to be another Ryan Leaf or Jamarcus Russell, or he could be a great player and get repeatedly injured ala Matt Stafford.

Not all of your greats come just in the first round. Sacrificing the ability to draft guys and solidify your team to take a roll of the dice on one guy is just not something any team serious about winning can take.

Theres always the chance the guy could be worth it, but the risk youre taking if youre wrong is just too big to recover from.

Urc Burry
02-26-2012, 07:17 PM
As bad as this team needs a franchise QB, theres no way you can justify blowing an entire draft and part of another on just one player.

He could turn out to be another Ryan Leaf or Jamarcus Russell, or he could be a great player and get repeatedly injured ala Matt Stafford.

Not all of your greats come just in the first round. Sacrificing the ability to draft guys and solidify your team to take a roll of the dice on one guy is just not something any team serious about winning can take.

Theres always the chance the guy could be worth it, but the risk youre taking if youre wrong is just too big to recover from.

Meh. I look at it like one elite QB can make an average team a Super Bowl team. Look back at the 09 draft we got two contributing players from tht draft and one was a kicker. We have the cap space to make up for the loss of some picks

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 07:22 PM
Apparently you never heard of building a fortune through hard work rather than moving to Vegas, and think the only "winners" in the world bought a lottery ticket to get to where they are...

You're the dope who started the Vegas analogy, not me. Don't blame me when it blows back up in your face. What does "hard work" have to do with the draft anyway? Every single player in the draft carries risk, from the #1 pick to Mr. Irrelevent. You make it sound like every single draft pick that KC has used in the past NINETEEN years has been a solid pick.

Brianfo
02-26-2012, 07:33 PM
I think the Redskins are gonna make the necessary moves to get him and we won't be able to top it, nor will we try.

11 vs 5. Stupid argument.

O.city
02-26-2012, 07:35 PM
About the only scenario we should or could trade up is if the Browns sign Matt Flynn and RGIII is available at 5. We could move up past the Skins to try and get him.

Brianfo
02-26-2012, 07:41 PM
Or we could just draft the franchise QB who falls down the first since they tend to be better than the ones drafted high.

Who's gonna fall sport???

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 07:43 PM
Atleast it will show they tried to draft a first round QB/whiney Rosanne Barr voice

Brock
02-26-2012, 07:44 PM
Who's gonna fall sport???

I agree, there's no need to kill ourselves trying to move up.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 07:55 PM
Who's gonna fall sport???

Probably no one this year. But seems like every year someone is supposed to go one and two overall, the second one lasts a bit longer.

In which case it would be easier to trade up, but unless that happens there's no way we should go up to two.

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 08:11 PM
There are 5-6 players in the league right now who are "franchise QBs." When I say franchise, I mean a QB who can carry a mediocre team to the Super Bowl. Rodgers, Big Ben, Brady, Brees, Peyton (who is slipping out of that group). Arguably Eli, though it's debatable if he could do this without the very good Giants team that surrounds him. That's consistent with every generation. At most, you typically only have 5 who fall in that category.

Let's look at 1998-2010 (skipped the last 3 drafts, because they haven't had enough time to develop into franchise QBs yet). 32 first round QBs drafted during that time. If you count Eli, that means you have a 4 in 32 chance to draft a franchise QB with a first round pick (16% chance, for those counting).

Like I said, if you're monumentally lucky, you end up with a Peyton QB. Luck is probably that guy. If you do well, you end up with Matt Ryan. RGIII is probably more Ryan than he is Luck. If I'm Peyton Manning, sure, I don't care if we bring no young talent in the next 3 years. If I'm Matt Ryan, I need those next 3 drafts to put my team over the top. Betting on the 20% chance you get Peyton instead of building a team around the 80% chance you get Matt Ryan is a very, very bad calculated decision.

Not only do you randomly pull numbers out of your ass, the numbers you pull out of your ass aren't even correct even if they had any type of validity. How does a 4 in 32 chance equate to 16%? (For those of us capable of counting, a 4 in 32 chance equates to 12.5%.)

Obviously, my math is a bit fuzzy, but could you please enlighten me as to the Chiefs probability of winning a Super Bowl the past NINETEEN years when they didn't win a single playoff game?

Speaking of very, very bad calculated decisions, you do understand that each and every pick in the draft is a risk--from the number one pick all the way down to Mr. Irrelevant. Only ~80% of draft picks are with thier team on opening day--of course that number is higher for higher round draft picks, but they are still a risk of being a bust.

You mitigate risk by doing your homework. If you are a franchise QB away from being a Super Bowl contender, then I think it is time to take the BIG risk of getting that FRANCHISE QB. I've been on the RG3 bandwagon from the get-go.

I think a QB with a cannon for an arm, pin-point accuracy, 4.4 speed who looks to throw first, a solid head on his shoulders, and is extremely intelligent (accepted into Law School and working on his Masters as a junior?) is about as much as a surre thing as you're gonna get in the NFL.

The ultimate question in looking for a franchise QB, however, is this: Does he elevate the play of his teammates around him or does the team make him look better than he really is. If you watched any of the Baylor games this year, you know the answer to that question, and you know why RG3 is a FRANCHISE QB.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 08:16 PM
Peyton mannings are very very difficult to find. I'm talking about a qb so good he alone can carry a mediocre team to the super bowl. if you trade away all your future draft picks, that's what you're asking rgIII to be.

This franchise qb concept is getting out of control. unless we are monumentally lucky, even if we are aggressive, we won't get Brady or brees. We have to try to get a brees type qb, but we have to build our team as if the best we can get is Matt Ryan or a Joe flacco or a Philip rivers type qb. These guys are good qbs, but theyre bot going to get you to the super bowl unless you give them a very good supporting cast. Hell, even Eli might fall into that category.

Building around your qb to the point where for 2-3 years, you take away virtually every chance to bring in young talent is a really, really bad strategy.

All of them are first round QBs, which is something this team is allergic to.

notorious
02-26-2012, 08:19 PM
So, never try.


Stick with the old plan since it has worked so well for us in the past.

Bewbies
02-26-2012, 08:19 PM
All the picks in the world don't matter anymore if you don't have a QB....

MOhillbilly
02-26-2012, 08:21 PM
Fisher mind Fuck.

notorious
02-26-2012, 08:22 PM
All the picks in the world don't matter anymore if you don't have a QB....

It's like having a world-class sports car with a grandma driver.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 08:27 PM
How many of the NFL's current great QB's are were drafted top two? How many teams gave up and entire draft + some to get said great QB?

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 08:38 PM
Peyton mannings are very very difficult to find. I'm talking about a qb so good he alone can carry a mediocre team to the super bowl. if you trade away all your future draft picks, that's what you're asking rgIII to be.

This franchise qb concept is getting out of control. unless we are monumentally lucky, even if we are aggressive, we won't get Brady or brees. We have to try to get a brees type qb, but we have to build our team as if the best we can get is Matt Ryan or a Joe flacco or a Philip rivers type qb. These guys are good qbs, but theyre bot going to get you to the super bowl unless you give them a very good supporting cast. Hell, even Eli might fall into that category.

Building around your qb to the point where for 2-3 years, you take away virtually every chance to bring in young talent is a really, really bad strategy.

Uh, there is that whole "free agency" thing. Why not use proven commodities to fill in the gaps for a year or two?

You make it sound like going after a franchise QB will result in the Planet of the Apes.....


http://www.originalprop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/planet-of-the-apes-statue-of-liberty-blu-ray-disc-screencap-hd-1080p-05.jpg

You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

Bewbies
02-26-2012, 08:46 PM
How many of the NFL's current great QB's are were drafted top two? How many teams gave up and entire draft + some to get said great QB?

If the front office believes Tannehill will end up being the best they should take him. If they think it's gonna be RG3 or Kirk Cousins, that's who they should make every effort to take.

If the QB you think will be the best ends up that way no price is too high. If they don't any cost is too high.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 08:55 PM
Uh, there is that whole "free agency" thing. Why not use proven commodities to fill in the gaps for a year or two?

You make it sound like going after a franchise QB will result in the Planet of the Apes.....


http://www.originalprop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/planet-of-the-apes-statue-of-liberty-blu-ray-disc-screencap-hd-1080p-05.jpg

Any strategy that has you relying purely on free agency for 2 offseasons is beyond fail. It goes against anything and everything a good football team should do. The best teams build through the draft. Let me again reiterate... if RGIII isn't Peyton Manning, and he probably won't be, he's going to need help.

A good team can draft 4-5 quality players/starters in 2 years. A very good team can draft 6-7. Why would you rather those players out of the draft than free agency? Because those 6-7 players you draft will probably cost the price of one overpriced free agent. I thought that was common sense.

SNR
02-26-2012, 08:57 PM
Also, can I just say fuck next year's supposedly glorious crop of QBs? I've been told multiple times by people that I just need to sit tight because next year we'll have a chance to draft Landry Jones or Tyler Wilson (assuming we don't blow shit chunks and get to draft Matt Barkley #1 overall). Oh goody! We can draft Luke Kuechly and Landry Jones and we'll have the best team ever! Problem solved!

Even Barkley is a pathetic turd compared to Luck and RGIII. Those two QBs are fucking amazing, and it really sucks that Philip Rivers and Tyler Palko put us in this unfortunate never-ending purgatory. We actually had the potential to draft one of those guys and fucked the whole thing up.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 08:58 PM
If the front office believes Tannehill will end up being the best they should take him. If they think it's gonna be RG3 or Kirk Cousins, that's who they should make every effort to take.

If the QB you think will be the best ends up that way no price is too high. If they don't any cost is too high.

This is the kind of logic that's getting us into irrational loops.

There absolutely is a price too high. Building a team around the idea that you're rookie QB is going to be as good as Peyton Manning is reckless. You need to build your team as if you're going to get Matt Ryan, and hope to god your QB becomes Peyton Manning.

O.city
02-26-2012, 09:00 PM
Any strategy that has you relying purely on free agency for 2 offseasons is beyond fail. It goes against anything and everything a good football team should do. The best teams build through the draft. Let me again reiterate... if RGIII isn't Peyton Manning, and he probably won't be, he's going to need help.

A good team can draft 4-5 quality players/starters in 2 years. A very good team can draft 6-7. Why would you rather those players out of the draft than free agency? Because those 6-7 players you draft will probably cost the price of one overpriced free agent. I thought that was common sense.

Exactly.


The Chiefs have gone about building this team the right way.

The only personnel mistake is at qb. We need a franchise qb, but you can't throw the rest of the team under the bus just to get one.

Look at the Packers this season. They had the epitome of the franchise qb and that wasn't enough due to a shitty defense, which they will have to upgrade in the draft.

The Chiefs need luck to happen in order to get the guy this draft. They can't go throwing 4 or 5 first rounders away.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 09:00 PM
I don't think RG3 was this elite prospect last year..

FAX
02-26-2012, 09:04 PM
Also, can I just say **** next year's supposedly glorious crop of QBs? I've been told multiple times by people that I just need to sit tight because next year we'll have a chance to draft Landry Jones or Tyler Wilson (assuming we don't blow shit chunks and get to draft Matt Barkley #1 overall). Oh goody! We can draft Luke Kuechly and Landry Jones and we'll have the best team ever! Problem solved!

Even Barkley is a pathetic turd compared to Luck and RGIII. Those two QBs are ****ing amazing, and it really sucks that Philip Rivers and Tyler Palko put us in this unfortunate never-ending purgatory. We actually had the potential to draft one of those guys and ****ed the whole thing up.

At this point, those are phone bugs under the bridge, though. And there's no use crying over spilt candy wrappers. That bathroom is locked. We sucked, but not enough. The SFL plan was a pipe dream, anyhow. In reality, it would have been really difficult to suck as much as Indy this year ... especially with our defense.

Perhaps we can find a good, young quarterback in 2014 or 2015 ... or maybe 2020. But, given our fortunes, by then Crennel will probably be either dead or retired and the league will have changed the rules back to favoring defense and the run game.

FAX

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 09:08 PM
Any strategy that has you relying purely on free agency for 2 offseasons is beyond fail. It goes against anything and everything a good football team should do. The best teams build through the draft. Let me again reiterate... if RGIII isn't Peyton Manning, and he probably won't be, he's going to need help.

A good team can draft 4-5 quality players/starters in 2 years. A very good team can draft 6-7. Why would you rather those players out of the draft than free agency? Because those 6-7 players you draft will probably cost the price of one overpriced free agent. I thought that was common sense.

Look ding dong, we already have the supporting cast. We aren't starting from scratch. The help is already in place. The missing piece is the FRANCHISE QB. So tell me, how many FRANCHISE QBs hit the free agency market in a given year? ZERO. That is why they are FRANCHISE QBs. I thought that was common sense. That is why you have to draft the FRANCHISE QB. Guess where FRANCHISE QBs are typically drafted? That's right--at the top of the draft. Smart teams don't pass on FRANCHISE QBs. They do what it takes to get one. Is there a risk? ABSOLUTELY. Am I willing to take a risk on what I think is a franchise QB vs. a LIFETIME of 7 and 9? ABSOLUTELY.

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 09:11 PM
I don't think RG3 was this elite prospect last year..

I guess that kind of explains your football knowledge and viewpoints then....

RustShack
02-26-2012, 09:12 PM
So who are all these current franchise QB's who were drafted at the top?

Fat Elvis
02-26-2012, 09:13 PM
Exactly.


The Chiefs have gone about building this team the right way.

The only personnel mistake is at qb. We need a franchise qb, but you can't throw the rest of the team under the bus just to get one.

Look at the Packers this season. They had the epitome of the franchise qb and that wasn't enough due to a shitty defense, which they will have to upgrade in the draft.

The Chiefs need luck to happen in order to get the guy this draft. They can't go throwing 4 or 5 first rounders away.

Who is throwing away 4 or 5 first rounders? LMAO

This is what it has come to for the detractors?

RustShack
02-26-2012, 09:14 PM
I guess that kind of explains your football knowledge and viewpoints then....

Yes enlighten me, where was he projected to go last year if he went pro?

Marcellus
02-26-2012, 09:16 PM
Yes enlighten me, where was he projected to go last year if he went pro?

I don't think he was even projected to be a QB.

RustShack
02-26-2012, 09:18 PM
I don't think he was even projected to be a QB.

According to Fat Elvis he was an elite QB last year.

O.city
02-26-2012, 09:18 PM
Who is throwing away 4 or 5 first rounders? LMAO

This is what it has come to for the detractors?

How else do you expect to get to that number 2 spot? You think the Rams are gonna say "sure we would rather take your spot and miss out on one of the blue chip prospects that we desperately need to protect our franchise qb"?

Marcellus
02-26-2012, 09:20 PM
According to Fat Elvis he was an elite QB last year.

Kiper or somebody said on the radio last weekend that he was probably going to have to apologize to him at the combine or something along those lines.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 09:25 PM
Also, can I just say **** next year's supposedly glorious crop of QBs? I've been told multiple times by people that I just need to sit tight because next year we'll have a chance to draft Landry Jones or Tyler Wilson (assuming we don't blow shit chunks and get to draft Matt Barkley #1 overall). Oh goody! We can draft Luke Kuechly and Landry Jones and we'll have the best team ever! Problem solved!

Even Barkley is a pathetic turd compared to Luck and RGIII. Those two QBs are ****ing amazing, and it really sucks that Philip Rivers and Tyler Palko put us in this unfortunate never-ending purgatory. We actually had the potential to draft one of those guys and ****ed the whole thing up.

The Chiefs never had a shot in hell at Luck. They lost out on RGIII. He's a terrific QB prospect, but I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of the 2013 class. Barkley and Wilson are intriguing picks right now and will be very strong picks with another year of experience. Tyler Bray or Aaron Murray are two QBs who could have very big years in 2012 and, if either of them do, they could declare and be very, very intriguing first round picks. And you just never know what QB with another year of experience could have a big year. Maybe EJ Manuel or Geno Smith have a big year.

As I've said before, I don't think any QB is going to be nearly as good as Luck. I don't see why it's out of the question that Barkley or Wilson won't maybe be every bit as good as Luck. And I think it's very likely that there will be a ton of picks better than Tannehill. [CORRECTION: Barkley or Wilson will be every bit as good as RGIII]

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 09:32 PM
Look ding dong, we already have the supporting cast. We aren't starting from scratch. The help is already in place. The missing piece is the FRANCHISE QB. So tell me, how many FRANCHISE QBs hit the free agency market in a given year? ZERO. That is why they are FRANCHISE QBs. I thought that was common sense. That is why you have to draft the FRANCHISE QB. Guess where FRANCHISE QBs are typically drafted? That's right--at the top of the draft. Smart teams don't pass on FRANCHISE QBs. They do what it takes to get one. Is there a risk? ABSOLUTELY. Am I willing to take a risk on what I think is a franchise QB vs. a LIFETIME of 7 and 9? ABSOLUTELY.

You're an idiot. There is a risk in drafting a QB and hoping he's a franchise QB. It is a very low-odds gamble to draft a QB in the hopes that he becomes the next Peyton Manning, which is what you're doing here.

Pure and simple. If you draft RGIII, unless he becomes Peyton Manning good, you're going to have to build your team largely through free agency. That's a model that almost never works for any team. Period.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 09:34 PM
The Chiefs never had a shot in hell at Luck. They lost out on RGIII. He's a terrific QB prospect, but I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of the 2013 class. Barkley and Wilson are intriguing picks right now and will be very strong picks with another year of experience. Tyler Bray or Aaron Murray are two QBs who could have very big years in 2012 and, if either of them do, they could declare and be very, very intriguing first round picks. And you just never know what QB with another year of experience could have a big year. Maybe EJ Manuel or Geno Smith have a big year.

As I've said before, I don't think any QB is going to be nearly as good as Luck. I don't see why it's out of the question that Barkley or Wilson won't maybe be every bit as good as Luck. And I think it's very likely that there will be a ton of picks better than Tannehill.

Problem with all of that is

A. There is no telling who will and won't declare. Remember this draft went from QB heavy to QB light very quickly.

B. If we won't trade up at #11 for a franchise QB what makes you think we will next year when we play an easier schedule, have Berry, Moeaki, and Charles back? We won't have Palko starting any games so we will finish with a better record. This will cause us to have a worse draft position than this year.


Next year this same argument will arise as the "true fans" jockey for yet another career back up or over the hill veteran hoping for that one playoff win instead of sustained success and talk about how it is not worth it to trade up for a QBoTF.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 09:37 PM
You're an idiot. There is a risk in drafting a QB and hoping he's a franchise QB. It is a very low-odds gamble to draft a QB in the hopes that he becomes the next Peyton Manning, which is what you're doing here.

Pure and simple. If you draft RGIII, unless he becomes Peyton Manning good, you're going to have to build your team largely through free agency. That's a model that almost never works for any team. Period.

Except this team is damn near built through the draft as it is, all except for RT and QB. Funny you mention building a team through FA not working yet you support us getting Manning in FA even though 40+ years of Chiefs history says that model does not work.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 09:38 PM
Problem with all of that is

A. There is no telling who will and won't declare. Remember this draft went from QB heavy to QB light very quickly.

B. If we won't trade up at #11 for a franchise QB what makes you think we will next year when we play an easier schedule, have Berry, Moeaki, and Charles back? We won't have Palko starting any games so we will finish with a better record. This will cause us to have a worse draft position than this year.


Next year this same argument will arise as the "true fans" jockey for yet another career back up or over the hill veteran hoping for that one playoff win instead of sustained success and talk about how it is not worth it to trade up for a QBoTF.

Barkley, Jones, Wilson, Manuel, and Geno Smith will declare (I think). They all have to. You have to hope Aaron Murray or Bray declare, and I don't see why at least one of them wouldn't.

In either situation, I believe the Chiefs would need to trade into the top 10. Trading into the top from 20 to the top 10 is a hell of a lot easier than trading from #11 to #2. We would have to be aggressive next year too, but there's no doubt at all that no matter how good a season we have, it's not going to be difficult to trade up to get a good QB. prospect.

tredadda
02-26-2012, 09:45 PM
Barkley, Jones, Wilson, Manuel, and Geno Smith will declare (I think). They all have to. You have to hope Aaron Murray or Bray declare, and I don't see why at least one of them wouldn't.

In either situation, I believe the Chiefs would need to trade into the top 10. Trading into the top from 20 to the top 10 is a hell of a lot easier than trading from #11 to #2. We would have to be aggressive next year too, but there's no doubt at all that no matter how good a season we have, it's not going to be difficult to trade up to get a good QB. prospect.

This year we were looking at Luck, RGIII, Barkley, and Jones in the first round. Two of them declared. You are hoping these others declare and are even worth a first round selection. The problem is, too many people are afraid to trade up. There will always be the contingent that feels that trading up is expensive and not worth it. I sadly think our Front Office (the ones who truly matter in all this) agrees with that though process. If we end up drafting 20 or later then that means our QB, whomever that might be, was good enough to get us into the playoffs. That will cause the FO to rest on their laurels instead of addressing the QB situation, ala Cassel and the 2010 Chiefs.

beach tribe
02-26-2012, 09:53 PM
Oh yeah whoever said Luck is comparable to Newton is retarded. Cam wasn't even trying at the combine. Don't be retarded, he knew for a fact he'd be #1 the overall pick and he is the type of person to not try because he knows he won't be punished for it.

:BS:

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 09:57 PM
Except this team is damn near built through the draft as it is, all except for RT and QB. Funny you mention building a team through FA not working yet you support us getting Manning in FA even though 40+ years of Chiefs history says that model does not work.

I absolutely want to sign Peyton. But only if they draft a QB in the first round. And I believe we can do just as well with a hell of a lot less picks if we trade in 2013, no matter how good our record is.

And this team may be built through the draft. But over the next 2 years, almost all of our draft picks are going to become fully contracted veterans. In Tyson Jackson's case, you'll save a lot of money. Dorsey to some extent too. In cases like Albert, Moeaki, Asamoah, Kendrick Lewis, Belcher, etc... you're going to have really, really overpay them to keep them and you're going to pay them a shitload more than what they make now, which is table scraps. Meanwhile, Hali turns 30. Bowe starts to hit his 30's. Jamaal Charles might start to lose a step.

You don't build your team primarily through free agency. You have to build it through the draft. And unless you hit not just a home run but a grand slam, one solid pick isn't going to be enough to justify 2 years of drafts.

chiefzilla1501
02-26-2012, 09:58 PM
This year we were looking at Luck, RGIII, Barkley, and Jones in the first round. Two of them declared. You are hoping these others declare and are even worth a first round selection. The problem is, too many people are afraid to trade up. There will always be the contingent that feels that trading up is expensive and not worth it. I sadly think our Front Office (the ones who truly matter in all this) agrees with that though process. If we end up drafting 20 or later then that means our QB, whomever that might be, was good enough to get us into the playoffs. That will cause the FO to rest on their laurels instead of addressing the QB situation, ala Cassel and the 2010 Chiefs.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm pretty sure those guys have no choice but to declare. The only two who might not are Murray and Bray. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 10:17 PM
a)So the Redskins want to give up 4 draft picks for RGIII
B)who I heard last year at this time was projected to be drafted as a WR
Somewhere between a & b is a grand canyon of WTF?

L.A. Chieffan
02-26-2012, 10:23 PM
a)So the Redskins want to give up 4 draft picks for RGIII
B)who I heard last year at this time was projected to be drafted as a WR
Somewhere between a & b is a grand canyon of WTF?

he has a cool name

Okie_Apparition
02-26-2012, 10:30 PM
The all mighty Newton was getting booed at the Pro Bowl
:LOL: the pro bowl

BossChief
02-27-2012, 12:59 AM
Tannehill was a receiver except for his last 20 games in college and people that have seen all his games say he is a "natural quarterback" and his weakness is playing time.

RG3 has never been talked about as a receiver, he is a damn good quarterback.

Signing Peyton and drafting Tannehill would be "building a championship foundation" for this team.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-27-2012, 07:02 AM
According to John Czarnecki of FOX Sports, the Rams have been getting "weird, uninterested signals" from the Browns on the possibility of trading up two spots to draft Baylor's Robert Griffin III.
RGIII is coming off a dominant Combine, exceeding height expectations, exploding with Vick-like speed, and putting on the most impressive news conference display ESPN's John Clayton has seen in 24 years in Indy. While there's little doubt that Griffin will go off the board at No. 2 overall, we've now seen several reports in two days suggesting the Browns won't be nearly as aggressive as the Redskins. We've also seen at least a handful of national reports warning not to rule out a "mystery" team in the RGIII sweepstakes. Feb 27 - 2:37 AM

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7406/robert-griffin-iii

Chiefs=Good
02-27-2012, 07:04 AM
According to John Czarnecki of FOX Sports, the Rams have been getting "weird, uninterested signals" from the Browns on the possibility of trading up two spots to draft Baylor's Robert Griffin III.
RGIII is coming off a dominant Combine, exceeding height expectations, exploding with Vick-like speed, and putting on the most impressive news conference display ESPN's John Clayton has seen in 24 years in Indy. While there's little doubt that Griffin will go off the board at No. 2 overall, we've now seen several reports in two days suggesting the Browns won't be nearly as aggressive as the Redskins. We've also seen at least a handful of national reports warning not to rule out a "mystery" team in the RGIII sweepstakes. Feb 27 - 2:37 AM

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7406/robert-griffin-iii

Mystery team? :grovel:

Steron
02-27-2012, 02:02 PM
I've said it another thread so I'll say it here.

I don't want Peyton Manning and the huge contract that will come with a 35 year old broken QB. He's only been sacked 231 times in 13 years (You can't really count 2011 as a 0, can you?). Do the math, that's 18 (I rounded up) times a season. We gave up 34 last year. Roughly double. Of course he makes the offensive line better somewhat but do you want to have him getting hit for sacks at twice the rate he's used to? This doesn't even take into consideration plays where the QB gets hit but not sacked. (I admit I didn't look a long time for the QB hit stat). At 35 the body doesn't bounce back like it did at 25.


Keep Orton for two years.
Cut or trade Cassel. I don't care which.
Draft Tannehill at 1.11.
Let Tannehill and Stanzi fight for QB2.

ChiefsCountry
02-27-2012, 02:07 PM
I've said it another thread so I'll say it here.

I don't want Peyton Manning and the huge contract that will come with a 35 year old broken QB. He's only been sacked 231 times in 13 years (You can't really count 2011 as a 0, can you?). Do the math, that's 18 (I rounded up) times a season. We gave up 34 last year. Roughly double.

The same line that with Matt Cassel gave up nearly 3 sacks a game and with Kyle Orton only had 1 in 3 games. Our line is more on the QB than the actual OL itself.

htismaqe
02-27-2012, 02:08 PM
The same line that with Matt Cassel gave up nearly 3 sacks a game and with Kyle Orton only had 1 in 3 games. Our line is more on the QB than the actual OL itself.

This.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-27-2012, 03:05 PM
Keep Orton for two years.
Cut or trade Cassel. I don't care which.
Draft Tannehill at 1.11.
Let Tannehill and Stanzi fight for QB2.

My signature agrees.

RustShack
02-27-2012, 04:01 PM
I've said it another thread so I'll say it here.

I don't want Peyton Manning and the huge contract that will come with a 35 year old broken QB. He's only been sacked 231 times in 13 years (You can't really count 2011 as a 0, can you?). Do the math, that's 18 (I rounded up) times a season. We gave up 34 last year. Roughly double. Of course he makes the offensive line better somewhat but do you want to have him getting hit for sacks at twice the rate he's used to? This doesn't even take into consideration plays where the QB gets hit but not sacked. (I admit I didn't look a long time for the QB hit stat). At 35 the body doesn't bounce back like it did at 25.


Keep Orton for two years.
Cut or trade Cassel. I don't care which.
Draft Tannehill at 1.11.
Let Tannehill and Stanzi fight for QB2.

If he makes a lot of money here that means he was more than worth the signing. Incentive based contracts mean you have to reach certain mile stones to earn that money. That's the kind of contract he said he will take to prove he can still play.

So, if he sucks like you claim he will, we don't lose a lot of money.

Chiefnj2
02-27-2012, 04:08 PM
That's the kind of contract he said he will take to prove he can still play.

Do you really believe that?