PDA

View Full Version : The Chiefs Should Draft Brandon Weeden


Direckshun
04-16-2012, 10:59 PM
It's been popping up in several threads now, and every time I mention it, it becomes the center of conversation and derails the thread.

So here is the thread. This is where I will take my beating.

I understand how unpopular this sentiment is, but I really like this prospect.

You're talking about a dynamite arm, brilliant leadership characteristics, coming from a spread system that still required him to make multiple reads, he has the intelligence to pick up the pro style much more quickly than Tannehill.

He has the killer instinct, the swagger, the composure, and the physical abilities.

The knock on Weeden is, of course, his age. Not his ability.

Thing is, I'm open to investing a 2nd rounder on him. You might be able to get him for a 3rd.

If that's the case, he either replaces Cassel outright (my preference), or he takes over for Cassel late this year or by the start of next year.

Developed well, this is somebody who can win for his career in the NFL, short as it may be. But I'll take three to five years of a QB I can win with, with the team he needs already assembled for him like we are, and I'll take it with a second round pick if I have to.

The Chiefs do not have access to Luck or RG3, and we can't assume that the QB draft board falls favorably for us in 2013.

If it does, it does. But for now, Weeden is the best QB in this draft over the next five years not named Luck or RG3.

Let's do this thing, motherfuckers.

Nightfyre
04-16-2012, 11:09 PM
I think there are a lot of bad assumptions in your scenario.
1) Assumed Weeden will learn faster than Tannehill.
A) Weeden is 29 and 29 year olds learn slower than 23 and 24 year olds.
B) Tannehill is actually from a pro system. Weeden is from a pure spread system.
C) You assume Weeden is more intelligent than Tannehill which you certainly don't have any objective data to support.

2) Assumed Weeden can take over this year or next.
A) Weeden will have to learn to read defenses, call hots, adjust protections, pick up a pro system, call audibles. That is a lot.

3) You assume Weeden is the best QB in this draft.
A) Maybe. But he has a 5 year window max. And the Chiefs will have to rebuild again to hit it in three years when it opens.


tldr: Let's not do this.

the Talking Can
04-17-2012, 07:19 AM
he wears a faux-hawk...not drafting a euro league soccer player

http://golfweek.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2011/01/13/brandon-weeden-mug_t620.jpg?fbf2daa044e08a86b24c9c38cd7501865a0e2373

Von Dumbass
04-17-2012, 07:35 AM
Figured I'd just throw this in here. It's Cecil Lammey talking about the QB's in this draft class. He's really high on Tannehill (calls him a franchise QB) and really low on Foles and Weeden and is meh on Osweiller.

http://stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=96&c=742&f=489711

@ The 20 minute mark Cecil Lammey starts talking about Brandon Weeden. Lammey is probably Weeden's biggest detractor in the media. He compares Weeden to Kyle Orton.

tredadda
04-17-2012, 08:52 AM
Figured I'd just throw this in here. It's Cecil Lammey talking about the QB's in this draft class. He's really high on Tannehill (calls him a franchise QB) and really low on Foles and Weeden and is meh on Osweiller.

http://stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=96&c=742&f=489711

@ The 20 minute mark Cecil Lammey starts talking about Brandon Weeden. Lammey is probably Weeden's biggest detractor in the media. He compares Weeden to Kyle Orton.

Don't say that. Some on here might advocate trading up for him given their man crush on "2 TD Kyle". Hell they might sacrifice a goat if it means they will have a shot at the next Orton.

Bewbies
04-17-2012, 09:20 AM
Drafting Weeden would be dumber than taking DeCastro at 11.

Chief Roundup
04-17-2012, 09:26 AM
Fuck That Weeden doesn't call plays. They use signals. When Gruden asked him about some verbage Weeden was lost. How good would Weeden be with out Justin Blackmon. Not worth a damn.

Chiefnj2
04-17-2012, 10:04 AM
**** That Weeden doesn't call plays. They use signals. When Gruden asked him about some verbage Weeden was lost. How good would Weeden be with out Justin Blackmon. Not worth a damn.

And last year Cam Newton couldn't recall a single Auburn play when Gruden asked him to repeat one. He said he looked at the sideline and they would hold up a number from 1-20.

Weeden gets the ball to Blackmon in stride.

DJ's left nut
04-17-2012, 10:15 AM
Again - the concern with Weeden isn't just is age, but how his age colored everything he did in college.

He was a freakin' adult playing against kids. Sure his arm looks good - he had another 5 years in a professional strength and conditioning program while in the Yankees system. His job for 1/2 a decade was to develop his throwing arm. It's obviously going to be stronger and more advanced than a college kid's arm. Look at how much thicker guys like Rogers get as they get through their early 20s. The physiology doesn't lie - guys hit their absolute athletic apex (in terms of strength and coordination, not just raw speed) at about 26 years old.

He was essentially that kid on your little league team that started puberty 3 years before everyone else. He kicked ass because he should kick ass - the dude's had a full beard since the guys he was playing were in grade school.

He came from the spread; there's going to be an adjustment. Being older doesn't make you brighter or more capable of learning. He's just older. The Air Raid system is awful for developing QBs and there's no reason we should just ignore that because Weeden is older. He's going to take a year as an understudy just to learn NFL terminology and pickups. He's futher behind than Tannehill in that regard.

The leadership thing? Just more spin. Being older doesn't make him a better leader. Guys like Dalton were able to take the reigns and lead immediately. Guys like Cassel are going to be pleading dorks their entire lives. Perhaps he's a great leader - but I don't care. I can get one of those that's not closing in on 30 years old just as easily.

You can't just pass off the age - it colors everything. Even if you believe he can step in immediately and start (I don't), you're looking at a 6 year 'prime' and then some decline years if you're lucky. Granted, if he's elite that's more than good enough for a 2nd round pick - but that takes us back to point 1: I simply don't think he's elite. He was literally a man playing among boys.

Well they don't let you play against teenagers in the NFL. Now that he's playing against other guys who's strength and coordination has caught and surpassed his, he's going to look awfully average in very short order, IMO.

I'd consider him in the 3rd, but no sooner.

rockymtnchief
04-17-2012, 10:21 AM
One of the talking heads on NFLN mentioned that he's been taken completely off a few teams draft boards already. Mostly because of the age issue.

Dicky McElephant
04-17-2012, 10:46 AM
The only way that I'm for drafting Weeden....is if we cut Cassel. That's the only way.

ChiefsCountry
04-17-2012, 12:09 PM
Weeden is the type of QB you draft if your team is set at QB and you need a backup who could come in play if needed. Dallas would have been perfect before they signed Orton. Chicago could be a good fit. Denver is a possibility, even though I think they go for a younger QB. Houston is another place even with TJ Yates.

ChiefMojo
04-18-2012, 06:22 AM
I don't mind Weeden and his age overall doesn't bother me as we would need him immediately. With that said, I think he will be gone before we select him. I just have a feeling outside of Tannehill that Cousins and Osweiler are the two QB's the Chiefs are targeting in the 2nd round.

spanky 52
04-18-2012, 06:50 AM
If we're going to draft QB, I'd rather have Tannahill.

Chiefnj2
04-18-2012, 08:11 AM
For the life of my I can't see why anyone would take Osweiler before the 5th round.

RUSH
04-18-2012, 08:53 AM
For the life of my I can't see why anyone would take Osweiler before the 5th round.

I'm with you man.

suds79
04-18-2012, 08:56 AM
For the life of my I can't see why anyone would take Osweiler before the 5th round.

Physical skills. Height, weight, arm strength, athletic.

That's why he's going to be drafted much higher than that.

His biggest knock is that he's raw. Honestly he really should have stayed in school another year. I think that would have served him well. But that makes him perfect for us. He'd get a chance to sit for a year and learn which would be the best thing for him.

Dave Lane
04-18-2012, 09:05 AM
If we're going to draft QB, I'd rather have Tannahill.

I'd rather have Luck.

Direckshun
04-18-2012, 09:05 AM
I think there are a lot of bad assumptions in your scenario.
1) Assumed Weeden will learn faster than Tannehill.
A) Weeden is 29 and 29 year olds learn slower than 23 and 24 year olds.

What's this supported by?

B) Tannehill is actually from a pro system. Weeden is from a pure spread system.

Fair point.

Weeden, however, has logged many more starts. While Tannehill, a relative baby at the position, is still learning basic shit, Weeden is a mile ahead in that department.

C) You assume Weeden is more intelligent than Tannehill which you certainly don't have any objective data to support.

Nope, never made this claim.

2) Assumed Weeden can take over this year or next.
A) Weeden will have to learn to read defenses, call hots, adjust protections, pick up a pro system, call audibles. That is a lot.

Tannehill will have to do all of the same things. The Aggies almost never put him under center, they rolled him out so often Mike Shanahan would blush, and they gave him run plays.

Weeden had to make multiple reads -- sure, it was from a pure spread, but regardless. He's not starting from scratch here.

3) You assume Weeden is the best QB in this draft.

After Luck & RG3.

Just want to get that out there...

A) Maybe. But he has a 5 year window max. And the Chiefs will have to rebuild again to hit it in three years when it opens.

No need to rebuild. Just keep drafting QBs.

It's an advantage to build for a team for ten years intead of for five years. But if you can win for five years, so freakin' be it. You just find another guy who can get it done after that. Not every team can have the perfect situation fall in their lap.

We haven't had that situation fall in our lap for years now. Let's make do with what we can.

Tannehill is a risk that precludes us from taking future stud QBs for the next few years while we see if Tannehill, a total mystery, can get it. Weeden's shortened career will do no such thing -- we're playing with house money for the next few years.

If a situation happens where we can get a ten year starter, we can make the play for that guy and bench him for a year. If not, we can roll with the guy we have.

Direckshun
04-18-2012, 09:06 AM
Drafting Weeden would be dumber than taking DeCastro at 11.

Meh. Depends where.

I probably wouldn't burn a first on him. But if I think I can win with him, I'd burn a 2nd.

Direckshun
04-18-2012, 09:07 AM
**** That Weeden doesn't call plays. They use signals. When Gruden asked him about some verbage Weeden was lost.

Show me that part of the video.

Direckshun
04-18-2012, 09:10 AM
Again - the concern with Weeden isn't just is age, but how his age colored everything he did in college.

He was a freakin' adult playing against kids. Sure his arm looks good - he had another 5 years in a professional strength and conditioning program while in the Yankees system. His job for 1/2 a decade was to develop his throwing arm. It's obviously going to be stronger and more advanced than a college kid's arm. Look at how much thicker guys like Rogers get as they get through their early 20s. The physiology doesn't lie - guys hit their absolute athletic apex (in terms of strength and coordination, not just raw speed) at about 26 years old.

He was essentially that kid on your little league team that started puberty 3 years before everyone else. He kicked ass because he should kick ass - the dude's had a full beard since the guys he was playing were in grade school.

He came from the spread; there's going to be an adjustment. Being older doesn't make you brighter or more capable of learning. He's just older. The Air Raid system is awful for developing QBs and there's no reason we should just ignore that because Weeden is older. He's going to take a year as an understudy just to learn NFL terminology and pickups. He's futher behind than Tannehill in that regard.

The leadership thing? Just more spin. Being older doesn't make him a better leader. Guys like Dalton were able to take the reigns and lead immediately. Guys like Cassel are going to be pleading dorks their entire lives. Perhaps he's a great leader - but I don't care. I can get one of those that's not closing in on 30 years old just as easily.

You can't just pass off the age - it colors everything. Even if you believe he can step in immediately and start (I don't), you're looking at a 6 year 'prime' and then some decline years if you're lucky. Granted, if he's elite that's more than good enough for a 2nd round pick - but that takes us back to point 1: I simply don't think he's elite. He was literally a man playing among boys.

Well they don't let you play against teenagers in the NFL. Now that he's playing against other guys who's strength and coordination has caught and surpassed his, he's going to look awfully average in very short order, IMO.

I'd consider him in the 3rd, but no sooner.

I never said the guy was a better leader because he was older. I said the guy was a better leader because he's a damn good leader. He's clutch. He doesn't lose games when they're close, he wins them. He needed some luck to beat Luck, but he thumped Tannehill, RG3, Foles, etc.

Watching Weeden tape is the opposite of watching Tannehill tape. Weeden gets better and better as the tape goes on, Tannehill just looks worse.

I'm not as concerned with the "conditioning" thing or whatever. If I took a damn good NFL QB and put them on a college team, they should be able to put up the numbers Weeden put up.

That's not a knock on Weeden, though. If anything, it just tells me he belongs.

Direckshun
04-18-2012, 09:10 AM
One of the talking heads on NFLN mentioned that he's been taken completely off a few teams draft boards already. Mostly because of the age issue.

Heh. We might be able to score him in the third.

This is the "Moneyball" approach. Value and get players who other teams devalue not because of talent, but because of some unfair prejudice aside from their talent.

Injury. Character. Age.

Direckshun
04-18-2012, 09:11 AM
I don't mind Weeden and his age overall doesn't bother me as we would need him immediately. With that said, I think he will be gone before we select him. I just have a feeling outside of Tannehill that Cousins and Osweiler are the two QB's the Chiefs are targeting in the 2nd round.

Cousins sure has the look of a Chiefs QB.

RUSH
04-18-2012, 09:18 AM
Physical skills. Height, weight, arm strength, athletic.

That's why he's going to be drafted much higher than that.

His biggest knock is that he's raw. Honestly he really should have stayed in school another year. I think that would have served him well. But that makes him perfect for us. He'd get a chance to sit for a year and learn which would be the best thing for him.

His arm isn't really that strong though. Usually quarterbacks as big as him have cannons but his arm is average. Tannehill and Weeden both have stronger arms.

And his throwing motion is so messed up and inconsistent that it makes him erratic and inaccurate. And his decision making is pretty bad too. When I watch him play I don't see much with him other than him being 6'8.

Direckshun
04-18-2012, 09:27 AM
His arm isn't really that strong though. Usually quarterbacks as big as him have cannons but his arm is average. Tannehill and Weeden both have stronger arms.

And his throwing motion is so messed up and inconsistent that it makes him erratic and inaccurate. And his decision making is pretty bad too. When I watch him play I don't see much with him other than him being 6'8.

I agree with you about his throwing motion, but Osweiler's got one of the strongest arms in this class.

It's probably:

RG3
Weeden
Osweiler
Luck
Tannehill

suds79
04-18-2012, 09:36 AM
His arm isn't really that strong though. Usually quarterbacks as big as him have cannons but his arm is average. Tannehill and Weeden both have stronger arms.

And his throwing motion is so messed up and inconsistent that it makes him erratic and inaccurate. And his decision making is pretty bad too. When I watch him play I don't see much with him other than him being 6'8.

Well I would expect Tannehill to be better in certain areas. That's why he'll be top 10.

I like Weeden a lot. But considering there's no possible way we cut Matt Cassel and play Weeden, He'd be 31 or so before ever getting a snap with us. So scratch him.

You're not going to get a QB with this much physical (Osweiler) talent in the 2nd without some warts. Otherwise he'd be 1st round.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-04-17/2012-nfl-draft-brock-osweiler-quarterbacks-matt-kalil-riley-reiff

According to sources, Brandt's statement might not be so far-fetched. A number of NFL sources told us their teams have very high grades on Osweiler and would be shocked if he was not drafted by the end of the second round.

In our view, Osweiler is a potential second-round pick, but he must tighten and shorten his delivery. He likely will never succeed without doing so.

beach tribe
04-18-2012, 09:38 AM
I agree with you about his throwing motion, but Osweiler's got one of the strongest arms in this class.

It's probably:

RG3
Weeden
Osweiler
Luck
Tannehill

When did you lose your mind bro?
Just curious.
I'm betting Weeden's gonna drop like a stone.

beach tribe
04-18-2012, 09:40 AM
It's more like:

RG3
Oz
Luck
Tannehill
Weeden

Von Dumbass
04-18-2012, 11:54 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YsevlHpqatI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="506" height="304" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3XooClErAx4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="506" height="304" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aUbkSR4wtWI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="506" height="304" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/he4suL3YGJA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

Nightfyre
04-18-2012, 04:45 PM
What's this supported by?


Science.


Weeden, however, has logged many more starts. While Tannehill, a relative baby at the position, is still learning basic shit, Weeden is a mile ahead in that department.


Weeden's starts aren't going to help him learn all the shit he has to learn.


Nope, never made this claim.

Yes, you did: "he has the intelligence to pick up the pro style much more quickly than Tannehill."

Tannehill will have to do all of the same things. The Aggies almost never put him under center, they rolled him out so often Mike Shanahan would blush, and they gave him run plays.

Weeden had to make multiple reads -- sure, it was from a pure spread, but regardless. He's not starting from scratch here. Tannehill had to understand the pro-style system they ran at A&M, regardless of how the coaches chose to execute it. Weeden made quick reads from a spread system. Progressing through those reads does not make him more developed as a passer than Tannehill who actually RAN a pro system.




No need to rebuild. Just keep drafting QBs. With Weeden, he will take three years to develop. By the time he's ready, a rebuild will be underway.


It's an advantage to build for a team for ten years intead of for five years. But if you can win for five years, so freakin' be it. You just find another guy who can get it done after that. Not every team can have the perfect situation fall in their lap.

We haven't had that situation fall in our lap for years now. Let's make do with what we can. Or we could just start making the ten year plan now, instead of wasting time and resources on a guy who has a limited probability of success and whose BEST CASE SCENARIO reward does not justify the risk.



Tannehill is a risk that precludes us from taking future stud QBs for the next few years while we see if Tannehill, a total mystery, can get it. Weeden's shortened career will do no such thing -- we're playing with house money for the next few years. How do you figure that? I mean besides just continuing to pull shit out of your ass? Because we invested a first instead of a second in a guy? Child please.

KCDC
04-18-2012, 05:07 PM
If the Chiefs draft Weeden, I'm okay with it. Even if he has a 5 year shelf life, we need to compete now before our young guys get too old. We'll be a different team in 5 years. We can draft another QB each year in the interim too.

I think Weeden has a greater chance to push Cassel aside THIS year than Tannehill. I'd like to plan to replace Cassel as soon as possible. If it is Stanzi or Weeden, fine. Cassel needs to have a strong year this year, or he needs to be gone/relegated to a back-up. We don't need a project QB. We need a guy that rises in the clutch than guys that don't handle pressure well (Cassel/Tannehill/Gabbert etc.)

Chiefnj2
04-18-2012, 07:19 PM
Tannehill had to understand the pro-style system they ran at A&M, regardless of how the coaches chose to execute it. .

That wasn't a real pro system. When you watch clips of all of Tannehills throws in a game he's in the shotgun as much as a spread QB. Weeden went through just as many reads and progressions as Tannehill, and Tannehill has an absolute crap long ball.

milkman
04-18-2012, 07:23 PM
That wasn't a real pro system. When you watch clips of all of Tannehills throws in a game he's in the shotgun as much as a spread QB. Weeden went through just as many reads and progressions as Tannehill, and Tannehill has an absolute crap long ball.

Tannehill, however does have a lot of zip on his short to intermediate passes, and on balls while on the run.

The long ball is a easily fixable mechanical thing, as he tends to stay on his back foot when making those throws.

Getting him to properly shift his weight is a minor adjustment in his mechanics.

beach tribe
04-18-2012, 07:46 PM
If the Chiefs draft Weeden, I'm okay with it. Even if he has a 5 year shelf life, we need to compete now before our young guys get too old. We'll be a different team in 5 years. We can draft another QB each year in the interim too.

I think Weeden has a greater chance to push Cassel aside THIS year than Tannehill. I'd like to plan to replace Cassel as soon as possible. If it is Stanzi or Weeden, fine. Cassel needs to have a strong year this year, or he needs to be gone/relegated to a back-up. We don't need a project QB. We need a guy that rises in the clutch than guys that don't handle pressure well (Cassel/Tannehill/Gabbert etc.)

We do not need to use a 2nd round pick on guy with a 3 year window. I'm still thinking weeded falls to the third. High picks are just too valuable to be used on someone that old, who has never played an NFL down.

xztop12
04-18-2012, 11:09 PM
Weeden is a joke

get your head checked

BossChief
04-19-2012, 01:30 AM
That wasn't a real pro system. When you watch clips of all of Tannehills throws in a game he's in the shotgun as much as a spread QB. Weeden went through just as many reads and progressions as Tannehill, and Tannehill has an absolute crap long ball.

I've heard over and over how improved his throws are as opposed to college since he trained with Chris Weinke.

Everyone came away gushing about his proday.

Weeden hasn't even has to have a snap count because everything he did in college was with a silent count. Not much huddle, bit I like his attitude.

I just don't think I'd draft him before the fourth round.

I hate the fact that he was so cocky about being a winner and never once credited his defense with averaging more than two takeaways per game or the fact he had the best weapon in college football to throw to.

People can say I'm 28...whatever, I'm a winner.

How many more games would Tannehill have won if he had that to work with?

xztop12
04-19-2012, 01:34 AM
Weeden throws a mean bubble screen!~! hahaha

beach tribe
04-20-2012, 01:18 AM
I'm just boggled by the Weeden love. I've watched everything i could find WANTING to like the guy. It's just not there. Without Blackmon he's just not the "winner" people think he is.
I don't think he starts more than 8 games for any franchise. I'll be happy to eat crow, but I'm not worried about that happening.

buddha
04-20-2012, 10:50 AM
I love the top two QBs in this draft. The others come with big questions. Big questions should not get drafted in the first round. I don't care what the "pundits" think, or whose stock is rising, blah, blah, blah. Lemmings die a gruesome death.

I honestly believe that at least two QBs who will become good out of the group just under Luck/RGIII. There is no way to know which ones will be the winners. The only thing you can control is what round you decide to roll the dice.

saphojunkie
04-20-2012, 12:59 PM
Drafting Weeden would be dumber than taking DeCastro at 11.

The "you don't take a guard at 11!" nonsense is getting out of control.

Get your heads out of the 90's, people. Things have changed. The rookie wage scale and shifting emphasis on passing, has completely changed positional value in the draft.

in 2005 three running backs went in the top five. I'm pretty sure any of those teams would have preferred to draft Logan Mankins in there instead of Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson, and Ronnie Brown. Of course, Mankins goes #31 and is a perennial pro-bowler. Those three RB are all on at least their 2nd team.

Running backs, wide receivers, and cornerbacks have the shortest NFL careers by far. Their skills diminish the quickest. DeCastro should, by all evidence, have a much longer career as Richardson or Barron or Claiborne or Blackmon.

You think it's dumb to pay the same price for a Cadillac as a Porsche. Well, the cadillac is still running at max when the Porsche has died. There are different ways players have value.

And don't come back with the stupid, "you can find a guard in later rounds!" crap. It's true of literally every position, including quarterback. though QB value has shifted so much that you now have to overdraft them. Still, Andy Dalton was a second round pick, and the 5th QB off the board.

Oh, and Mike Pouncey went at #15. Four spots makes a difference? no.

Nightfyre
04-20-2012, 01:50 PM
The "you don't take a guard at 11!" nonsense is getting out of control.

Get your heads out of the 90's, people. Things have changed. The rookie wage scale and shifting emphasis on passing, has completely changed positional value in the draft.

in 2005 three running backs went in the top five. I'm pretty sure any of those teams would have preferred to draft Logan Mankins in there instead of Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson, and Ronnie Brown. Of course, Mankins goes #31 and is a perennial pro-bowler. Those three RB are all on at least their 2nd team.

Running backs, wide receivers, and cornerbacks have the shortest NFL careers by far. Their skills diminish the quickest. DeCastro should, by all evidence, have a much longer career as Richardson or Barron or Claiborne or Blackmon.

You think it's dumb to pay the same price for a Cadillac as a Porsche. Well, the cadillac is still running at max when the Porsche has died. There are different ways players have value.

And don't come back with the stupid, "you can find a guard in later rounds!" crap. It's true of literally every position, including quarterback. though QB value has shifted so much that you now have to overdraft them. Still, Andy Dalton was a second round pick, and the 5th QB off the board.

Oh, and Mike Pouncey went at #15. Four spots makes a difference? no.

This post is so full of holes that I don't know where to start.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2012, 01:58 PM
If taking a guard @11 is a waste then what is taking a guy who will probably have a 7 year NFL career?

xztop12
04-20-2012, 02:39 PM
Does anyone know if Daboll runs a spread and what kind?

A lot of Weedens success came from the fact that he throws a really fast bubble screen and in college you can start blocking while the balls still in the air...

BossChief
04-20-2012, 04:50 PM
I think saphojunkie really is a junkie.

Bewbies
04-20-2012, 11:04 PM
Today guards are so valuable its hard to recall all that have been top 15 picks in the last 5 years. The NFL agrees their value cannot be overstated.

buddha
04-21-2012, 01:06 AM
Five great offensive linemen are the backbone of great offenses.

If you can get great OL later in the draft, and you know you can, go for it.

whoman69
04-21-2012, 02:53 PM
Despite Weeden's age and more experience, he will still need some time to become acclimated. He used a no huddle silent snap count system in college.

Johnny Vegas
04-21-2012, 03:21 PM
I think Weeden has potential in the small window he has in the NFL. He threw to Bryant and Blackmon in his career which are 2 first round picks which is what we have in Bowe and Baldwin. His age is his only downside. Really though the NFL ships a coach out in 3 years if they can't win right now. Trade down and get a 1st rounder for next year giving us 2 picks for 2013 draft. Pick up Weeden in the 2nd.

milkman
04-21-2012, 03:35 PM
The Chiefs burned a 1st round pick on Trent Green in '01.

They burned a 2nd round pick on Matt Cassel in '09.

If they take Weedon with a 2nd rounder this year, they'll be looking for another QB in another 5 years.

In the meantime, if the Chargers hadn't given up on Drew Brees so soon, they would have used a 1st round pick on him in '01, and would be set on the position for another 3 to 5 years.

So in the time that Brees would have given the Chargers, the Chiefs will have burned 4 picks on the position.

Age at QB matters.

Mr. Laz
04-23-2012, 11:10 AM
btw according to McShay, Weeden has the lowest completion percentage of the top 6 quarterbacks, when under pressure.

suds79
04-23-2012, 11:13 AM
I just don't see how Weeden makes a lick of sense considering it'd be a year or two before he'd get a sniff of the starting job.

By that time rolls around, I think some other QBs with grooming could be better & obviously would be much younger.

He just doesn't fit for us. He needs to get on the field pretty much right away.

Micjones
04-23-2012, 12:07 PM
The ONLY way I'd take Weeden is if he was going to be a Day 1 starter.
He won't be. Give me Tannehill.

Fat Elvis
04-23-2012, 07:56 PM
Weeden on Sports Science. You gotta check this out....


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3qBeoerlk3A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

aturnis
04-23-2012, 08:17 PM
The ONLY way I'd take Weeden is if he was going to be a Day 1 starter.
He won't be. Give me Tannehill.

Fuck Tannehill. I'd rather set railroad ties with my beanbag.

aturnis
04-23-2012, 08:20 PM
btw according to McShay, Weeden has the lowest completion percentage of the top 6 quarterbacks, when under pressure.

Three of them had a pretty good option to run instead of forcing a throw...just saying.

Johnny Vegas
04-23-2012, 08:23 PM
I just don't see how Weeden makes a lick of sense considering it'd be a year or two before he'd get a sniff of the starting job.

By that time rolls around, I think some other QBs with grooming could be better & obviously would be much younger.

He just doesn't fit for us. He needs to get on the field pretty much right away.

the ONLY thing I see Weeden going for him is he's played with a couple 1st round pick WR's. Can he be good with only these kind of WR's? Possibly. I just don't like his age. He's got great maturity and seems like a leader in the huddle. One thing is its stretching a bit taking him out of the 2nd. Stretching it even more to get another QB on the roster when Pioli is stuck on Cassel being the QB.

bsp4444
04-23-2012, 08:28 PM
Tannehill...too small hands, or two small hands. Eother way, I don't want him.

suds79
04-23-2012, 08:39 PM
Tannehill...too small hands, or two small hands. Eother way, I don't want him.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xu_bE7g2wqM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

beach tribe
04-23-2012, 09:01 PM
The "you don't take a guard at 11!" nonsense is getting out of control.

Get your heads out of the 90's, people. Things have changed. The rookie wage scale and shifting emphasis on passing, has completely changed positional value in the draft.

in 2005 three running backs went in the top five. I'm pretty sure any of those teams would have preferred to draft Logan Mankins in there instead of Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson, and Ronnie Brown. Of course, Mankins goes #31 and is a perennial pro-bowler. Those three RB are all on at least their 2nd team.

Running backs, wide receivers, and cornerbacks have the shortest NFL careers by far. Their skills diminish the quickest. DeCastro should, by all evidence, have a much longer career as Richardson or Barron or Claiborne or Blackmon.

You think it's dumb to pay the same price for a Cadillac as a Porsche. Well, the cadillac is still running at max when the Porsche has died. There are different ways players have value.

And don't come back with the stupid, "you can find a guard in later rounds!" crap. It's true of literally every position, including quarterback. though QB value has shifted so much that you now have to overdraft them. Still, Andy Dalton was a second round pick, and the 5th QB off the board.

Oh, and Mike Pouncey went at #15. Four spots makes a difference? no.

It would make a lot more sense drafting a G that high in the 90's than it does today, but it's not like anything else in this post makes much sense either.

Rain Man
04-23-2012, 09:22 PM
Weeden on Sports Science. You gotta check this out....


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3qBeoerlk3A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That was pretty darn impressive by both Blackmon and Weeden. I wouldn't guess that a QB would have any reasonable chance of hitting a clay pigeon in mid-air, but 4 for 5 at one point? Pretty amazing.