PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs When to expect the Chiefs to draft a QB in the 1st round


acesn8s
05-01-2012, 08:02 AM
Since the Chiefs started drafting players they have drafted 20 QBs 2 of which were in the first round (Todd Blackledge, 1983 and Steve Fuller, 1979). Only 7 QBs have been drafted in the first 3 rounds (Croyle, Blundin, Elkins, Blackledge, Fuller, Jaynes, and Livingston). By way of comparison, only 3 positions have seen less draft picks (C, K, and P). Furthermore, Jacksonville and Carolina have each drafted 2 QBs in the first round since entering the league in 1995 as well as Baltimore since 1996. Only Houston has drafted less QBs in the 1st round (1).

Total draft picks (1st round picks)
Total 523 (47)
QB 20 (2)
RB 75 (7)
WR 67 (5)
TE 26 (2)
C 17 (0)
G 35 (5)
T 50 (7)
DE 43 (5)
DT 40 (6)
LB 61 (3)
DB 80 (5)
P 5 (0)
K 4 (0)

I find it amazing that the two players that touch the ball on every play are two of the worst drafted positions.

Dayze
05-01-2012, 08:04 AM
I'd say virtually never. Clark is too worried that drafting a QB in the 1st will signal some sort of 'rebuild' and therefore effect sales.

Pioli or any GM is hesitant because he's basically tied to the hip with that QB. QB fails, he fails/fired.


IMO\

I'm of the opposite view - especially with the Chiefs/KC area. I think drafting a QB high in teh first would signal the Chiefs are serious about winning a championship / attempting to win one.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 08:04 AM
I think we will go after one this draft after Matt Cassel again fails this team and there are no excuses for him anymore.

KC_Lee
05-01-2012, 08:07 AM
I'd say virtually never. Clark is too worried that drafting a QB in the 1st will signal some sort of 'rebuild' and therefore effect sales.

Pioli or any GM is hesitant because he's basically tied to the hip with that QB. QB fails, he fails/fired.


IMO\

I'm of the opposite view - especially with the Chiefs/KC area. I think drafting a QB high in teh first would signal the Chiefs are serious about winning a championship / attempting to win one.

Totally agree with both point you bring up. Drafting a franchise QB in the first round would energize the fan base more than signing another scrub back up QB.

Look at how many people turned out in DC for RGIII's first apperence.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 08:09 AM
Never. It's too risky. See my sig.

acesn8s
05-01-2012, 08:12 AM
Until the Chiefs:

1. Hire a legit OC
2. Draft a legit 1st rounder QB
3. Protect said QB with a solid line
4. Maintain a top 10 defense

they will never see the SB again.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 08:19 AM
Until the Chiefs:

1. Hire a legit OC
2. Draft a legit 1st rounder QB
3. Protect said QB with a solid line
4. Maintain a top 10 defense

they will never see the SB again.

The bolded two have been proven wrong time and again. You don't need either to win a SB. It helps, but is not vital.

acesn8s
05-01-2012, 08:25 AM
The bolded two have been proven wrong time and again. You don't need either to win a SB. It helps, but is not vital.link?

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 08:26 AM
link?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

oldman
05-01-2012, 08:31 AM
If either Stanzi or Quinn prove to be a legit #2, it'll be next year. Cassel starts costing us big bucks again next year. If either steps up, we'll draft a QB in the 1st and let him sit behind the caretaker for a year. If they both suck, one or both will go and we'll still draft one high.

Dayze
05-01-2012, 08:33 AM
Pioli and Cassel will most assuredly agree to restructure Cassel's contract.

I firmly believe Cassel is the QB as long as Pioli is here.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 08:36 AM
link?

Seriously? Last year NE made the SB with one of the worst defenses in the league. The year before GB won it with an average defense and awful O-Line. That was just the last two years.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 08:37 AM
If either Stanzi or Quinn prove to be a legit #2, it'll be next year. Cassel starts costing us big bucks again next year. If either steps up, we'll draft a QB in the 1st and let him sit behind the caretaker for a year. If they both suck, one or both will go and we'll still draft one high.

Pioli needs to win ASAP and Romeo is flat old. Neither one of them wants anything to do with a rookie QB.

King_Chief_Fan
05-01-2012, 08:41 AM
A QB drafted in the first round will occur when one is within reach without giving up the farm, or when Pioli is gone or when Cassel is gone

Graystoke
05-01-2012, 08:52 AM
When Clevland wins the SB?

suds79
05-01-2012, 08:56 AM
Never.

We're always good enough to be anywhere from 6-10 to 9-7. Just out of range of the top QBs and good enough for the team to think "If we could just get that pass rusher we need... blah, blah, blah"

The meltdown is going to be huge when it doesn't happen next year after build up for that started even before this draft.

Hoover
05-01-2012, 09:01 AM
Yeah, we should have taken Weeden in the 1st.

Deberg_1990
05-01-2012, 09:06 AM
When the Chiefs get the #1 overall pick in the draft.
Posted via Mobile Device

Bane
05-01-2012, 09:09 AM
Never.Too risky @FatbastardPoe.

Deberg_1990
05-01-2012, 09:09 AM
Never.

We're always good enough to be anywhere from 6-10 to 9-7. Just out of range of the top QBs

This is because the organization always prefers to go the veteran free agent route. Just good enough to keep from being completely awful.
Posted via Mobile Device

tredadda
05-01-2012, 09:10 AM
When the Chiefs get the #1 overall pick in the draft.
Posted via Mobile Device

That sucks considering since the merger we have NEVER had the #1 pick.

Bane
05-01-2012, 09:10 AM
When the Chiefs get the #1 overall pick in the draft.
Posted via Mobile Device

We'd trade it for Kolb.

bsp4444
05-01-2012, 09:17 AM
I think they will next year, and there are some good prospects available. I'm hoping for Wilson from Arkansas.

KC_Lee
05-01-2012, 09:18 AM
Pioli needs to win ASAP and Romeo is flat old. Neither one of them wants anything to do with a rookie QB.

Which puts us right back to where we were when Carl and Marty took over the team in 1989. The more things change...

MoreLemonPledge
05-01-2012, 09:20 AM
WHY DRAFT ONE WHEN YOU CAN JUST TRADE FOR JIMMY CLAUSEN?

suds79
05-01-2012, 09:20 AM
I think they will next year, and there are some good prospects available. I'm hoping for Wilson from Arkansas.

You expecting us to trade up for him?

HemiEd
05-01-2012, 09:22 AM
It has been my opinion since they tried it twice in four years, and failed, Lamar put it in the secret by-laws to never ever do it again.
I can see his last words, being whispered on his death bed to Clark "don't you ever take a QB in the first, ever..................cough.....______________"

Chiefnj2
05-01-2012, 09:25 AM
Can a mod sticky this thread to the top and keep it there for the next decade? It'll save a lot of retyping through the years.

HemiEd
05-01-2012, 09:36 AM
Can a mod sticky this thread to the top and keep it there for the next decade? It'll save a lot of retyping through the years.

We could have a whole page of stickies, it could just all be stickies, great idea.

DA_T_84
05-01-2012, 09:39 AM
Never.Too risky @FatbastardPoe.

Seriously?

Anyone who thinks Poe is fat/lazy doesn't pay attention, and are bitching to bitch.

Dude isn't fat at all. He carries 350lbs the best you can.

Molitoth
05-01-2012, 09:45 AM
I'd say whenever the Chiefs suck enough to obtain the #1 or #2 overall draft pick and a good QB prospect is coming out that year, they will draft him.

I can't EVER see them trading up.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 09:54 AM
Until the Chiefs:

1. Hire a legit OC
2. Draft a legit 1st rounder QB
3. Protect said QB with a solid line
4. Maintain a top 10 defense

they will never see the SB again.

LOL You don't need a top 10 D to win a SB.

Or a legit OC.

You need a legit QB.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:03 AM
It is so easy to say we should draft a 1st round QB and think all the problems with the QB position are solved.

Name one, just one QB we could have drafted or reasonably traded up to get since Pioli has been the GM.

I'm waiting.......

Ok let me help you. NONE, ZIP, ZERO.

2009: Stafford went #1. Detroit was not going trade the first pick.
We passed on Sanchez who everyone was demanding we draft and he will probably loss his job to Tebow who can't hit the broadside of barn from 25 yards. Would the Chiefs situation be any different with Sanchez over Cassell? No.

Josh Freeman jury is out, but looks like another QB who does not have enough accuracy to be a franchise QB.

2010: Bradford went #1 and again the Rams were not going to give the pick up.
We passed on Tim Tebow. I don't think it even needs to be discussed.

2011: Luck and RGIII. We were not in position to trade up to get either one. Tannahill....way to much risk to pay the ransom to trade up to get him.

The Chiefs have been much better served at rebuilding the starting roster and depth. Now we are in position to trade the farm to get a legit QB if needed. The problem will be the position we are trading from will not allow us to trade up to the 1st or 2nd pick. So we are still going to be in a situation of hoping we hit on a Mark Sanchez type QB.

So everyone just shut up about us not drafting a 1st round QB until the current regime acutally passes on one worth having on the roster.

Chiefnj2
05-01-2012, 10:07 AM
It is so easy to say we should draft a 1st round QB and think all the problems with the QB position are solved.

Name one, just one QB we could have drafted or reasonably traded up to get since Pioli has been the GM.

I'm waiting.......

Ok let me help you. NONE, ZIP, ZERO.

2009: Stafford went #1. Detroit was not going trade the first pick.
We passed on Sanchez who everyone was demanding we draft and he will probably loss his job to Tebow who can't hit the broadside of barn from 25 yards. Would the Chiefs situation be any different with Sanchez over Cassell? No.

Josh Freeman jury is out, but looks like another QB who does not have enough accuracy to be a franchise QB.

2010: Bradford went #1 and again the Rams where not going to give the pick up.
We passed on Tim Tebow. I don't think it even needs to be discussed.

2011: Luck and RGIII. We were not in position to trade up to get either one. Tannahill....way to much risk to pay the ransom to trade up to get him.

The Chiefs have been much better served at rebuilding the starting roster and depth. Now we are in position to trade the farm to get a legit QB if needed. The problem will be the position we are trading from will not allow us to trade up to the 1st or 2nd pick. So we are still going to be in a situation of hoping we hit on a Mark Sanchez type QB.

So everyone just shut up about us not drafting a 1st round QB until the current regime acutally passes on one worth having on the roster.


It's too early to tell which young guy can come in and win playoff games or more. If before last year someone said TJ Yates was going to win a playoff game people would have said they were crazy. Freeman, Sanchez, Dalton, Mallett, Griffin, Tannehill who the hell knows. You have to take a chance.

rico
05-01-2012, 10:09 AM
I can't see the Chiefs having a high enough pick in the next couple years that would make them shoe-ins for drafting a franchise QB prospect. However, if there is ever going to be a time to draft a potential franchise QB, it will be in 2013 or 2014... I am real excited about the QB's in those 2 draft classes (Tyler Bray especially). With that said, if there is ever a time to trade up for a QB in the near future, it will be in one of those 2 years. I wasn't an advocate for trading up this year because personally, I think Tannehill is going to be a huge bust and him being selected at #8 tells me nothing, but 2 things; 1.) NFL teams are QB-starved and will reach either out of desperation or to temporarily quiet their fanbase with a "well, we tried" backup explanation, and 2.) This year was a weak ass draft class in terms of the QB position. Anyways, I HOPE the Chiefs trade up next year or the year after, but doubt it will happen. I will puke if we end up in Landry Jonesville.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:10 AM
I absolutely agree the Chiefs are going to have to roll the dice on a QB and probably needs to be next year. But none of they guys you listed were labeled "franchise" qb coming out of the draft. All are late first or later QBs.

okcchief
05-01-2012, 10:10 AM
Never

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 10:10 AM
It is so easy to say we should draft a 1st round QB and think all the problems with the QB position are solved.

Name one, just one QB we could have drafted or reasonably traded up to get since Pioli has been the GM.

I'm waiting.......

Ok let me help you. NONE, ZIP, ZERO.

2009: Stafford went #1. Detroit was not going trade the first pick.
We passed on Sanchez who everyone was demanding we draft and he will probably loss his job to Tebow who can't hit the broadside of barn from 25 yards. Would the Chiefs situation be any different with Sanchez over Cassell? No.

Josh Freeman jury is out, but looks like another QB who does not have enough accuracy to be a franchise QB.

2010: Bradford went #1 and again the Rams were not going to give the pick up.
We passed on Tim Tebow. I don't think it even needs to be discussed.

2011: Luck and RGIII. We were not in position to trade up to get either one. Tannahill....way to much risk to pay the ransom to trade up to get him.

The Chiefs have been much better served at rebuilding the starting roster and depth. Now we are in position to trade the farm to get a legit QB if needed. The problem will be the position we are trading from will not allow us to trade up to the 1st or 2nd pick. So we are still going to be in a situation of hoping we hit on a Mark Sanchez type QB.

So everyone just shut up about us not drafting a 1st round QB until the current regime acutally passes on one worth having on the roster.Mark Sanchez.

You can't play this game if you're going to use current situations. No one knew how Sanchez would pan out then. You should still try.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:14 AM
Why so down on Landry Jones. He is a very accurate QB. I recognize he does not come from a pro ready system. But, he is intelligent so I think he can certainly make the transition to the pro game.

The only question I have is does he have the arm strenght to make the deep out throws and throws into tight windows required in the NFL. As well as is he phyically tough and strong enough to stay healthy in the NFL.

But, he does have a lot of the tools.

DA_T_84
05-01-2012, 10:15 AM
Mark Sanchez.

You can't play this game if you're going to use current situations. No one knew how Sanchez would pan out then. You should still try.

No one knows, but they get paid millions of dollars to make educated decisions. Thank God we didn't whiff on him.

Missing on a QB can set your franchise back years.

DA_T_84
05-01-2012, 10:16 AM
No one knows, but they get paid millions of dollars to make educated decisions. Thank God we didn't whiff on him.

Missing on a QB can set your franchise back years.

And yes, I realize we have Cassel, and he is setting us back years.

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:16 AM
So everyone just shut up about us not drafting a 1st round QB until the current regime acutally passes on one worth having on the roster.

I think you're missing the point. It's not about who has hit and who hasn't. That's not the issue. It's about the Chiefs unwillingness to even try.

Now lets talk about next year where we can't use hindsight 20/20 vision. Will there be the next Matt Stafford? or the Next Mark Sanchez? We don't know. But you've got one freaking HUGE problem if your organization doesn't have the balls to ever roll the dice.

Honestly I'm at the point where I don't even care if we swing and miss. I applaud the Dolphins for trying at QB. Because you know what you do if you miss??? You do what the Chargers did. They missed on Leaf. Sucks for them but then came back and tried again. Hit on Rivers. In the meantime, we've been treading water at QB.

You keep drafting that 1st round QB until you have that franchise guy.

Chiefnj2
05-01-2012, 10:16 AM
No one knows, but they get paid millions of dollars to make educated decisions. Thank God we didn't whiff on him.

Missing on a QB can set your franchise back years.

Is the Jets franchise set back for years by making it to the AFC Championship game two times?

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:16 AM
Mark Sanchez.

You can't play this game if you're going to use current situations. No one knew how Sanchez would pan out then. You should still try.

So you are saying take a QB any QB, even if you believe he is not a franshise caliber QB. How does that make any sense.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 10:18 AM
So you are saying take a QB any QB, even if you believe he is not a franshise caliber QB. How does that make any sense.

Drafting a QB high is not part of the Process.

Scott wanted his guy. Period.

Chiefnj2
05-01-2012, 10:19 AM
So you are saying take a QB any QB, even if you believe he is not a franshise caliber QB. How does that make any sense.

Were Rothlesberger and Rodgers considered can't miss QB's? One was a small school spread QB and the other guy fell down the boards. You dont' know. You have to take a chance, or hope to hell you bump into the right grocery bagger.

Extra Point
05-01-2012, 10:19 AM
2014.

BigCatDaddy
05-01-2012, 10:19 AM
Always "next year" when the crop of QB's is much better.

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:20 AM
So you are saying take a QB any QB, even if you believe he is not a franshise caliber QB. How does that make any sense.

Did they pass because they knew he wasn't a franchise guy? Or did they pass because drafting a QB is too risky and were foolish enough to think "Nah we just need that DE (or name any other position from QB) and that'll put us over the top."

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:23 AM
Were Rothlesberger and Rodgers considered can't miss QB's? One was a small school spread QB and the other guy fell down the boards. You dont' know. You have to take a chance, or hope to hell you bump into the right grocery bagger.

Well don't we have our Rothlesberger/Rodgers on the roster already in Stanzi. So they have tried.

Again, which QB has Pioli passed on which we should have taken???? Again the answer is none, zip, zero.

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:25 AM
Well don't we have our Rothlesberger/Rodgers on the roster already in Stanzi. So they have tried.

Again, which QB has Pioli passed on which we should have taken???? Again the answer is none, zip, zero.

Drafting a QB in the 5th isn't trying.

And again you don't get it. It's not that that there hasn't been a SB caliber QB available for them to draft.

It's about their unwillingness to ever try. 1983 man. Come on.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 10:26 AM
Well don't we have our Rothlesberger/Rodgers on the roster already in Stanzi. So they have tried.

Again, which QB has Pioli passed on which we should have taken???? Again the answer is none, zip, zero.

OK. You can continue to be a dumbass and forget what was posted.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 10:27 AM
This is because the organization always prefers to go the veteran free agent route. Just good enough to keep from being completely awful.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yep.

Dayze
05-01-2012, 10:27 AM
Always "next year" when the crop of QB's is much better.

that.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:29 AM
Drafting a QB in the 5th isn't trying.

And again you don't get it. It's not that that there hasn't been a SB caliber QB available for them to draft.

It's about their unwillingness to ever try. 1983 man. Come on.

I totally disagree. Your theory if draft they and they will be All-Pros.

You have to evaluate and determine if they have ANY chance to be All-Pros. Yes it is a gamble, but it needs to be a gamble where the odds are at least reasonable. Per your theory we should just draft use all 7 rounds and take QBs. One of them would have to hit.

You can try to fly by flapping your arms...are you going to fly. No.

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:30 AM
Lets assume that Sanchez & Freeman absolutely don't pan out.

Bet you the Jets & Bucs try again on QB in the 1st before we do. Why? Because drafting QBs in the 1st is something we simply don't do.

And you know what? Their philosophy for trying to get to a SB will be much better served than ours.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 10:30 AM
No one knows, but they get paid millions of dollars to make educated decisions. Thank God we didn't whiff on him.

Missing on a QB can set your franchise back years.

Ryan Leaf set the Chargers back so bad they landed Eli Manning and traded him to the Giants for Philip Rivers.

Drafting Jamarcus Russell set the Raiders back so bad they traded nearly an entire draft for Carson Palmer.

:rolleyes:

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:31 AM
I totally disagree. Your theory if draft they and they will be All-Pros.

You have to evaluate and determine if they have ANY chance to be All-Pros. Yes it is a gamble, but it needs to be a gamble where the odds are at least reasonable. Per your theory we should just draft use all 7 rounds and take QBs. One of them would have to hit.

Actually that's a good idea. Would get to a SB a whole lot quicker. ;)

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:33 AM
Lets assume that Sanchez & Freeman absolutely don't pan out.

Bet you the Jets & Bucs try again on QB in the 1st before we do. Why? Because drafting QBs in the 1st is something we simply don't do.

And you know what? Their philosophy for trying to get to a SB will be much better served than ours.

Why would their approach of reaching for QBs which can't and don't pan out be better than our of building a great roster and trying to when with an average QB?

Both are going to end with the same result, no superbowl QB.

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:35 AM
Why would their approach of reaching for QBs which can't and don't pan out be better than our of building a great roster and trying to when with an average QB?

Both are going to end with the same result, no superbowl QB.

Wrong. this way the Jets & bucs are at least eligible to get a SB QB if they end up hitting on the next 1st round guy.

See the Chargers. Missed on Leaf. But kept trying. Hit on Rivers. For them it's at least possible all because they have Rivers. For us? It's not because we have Cassel.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:36 AM
My final comment. I agree we need to find a QB in the draft. We won't win a SB until we do. I just don't agree with everyone saying Pioli is married to Cassell and refuses to bring in someone else.

There is not a single QB you point to and say we should have taken him over Cassell. I just get tired of the bitching and complaining when we have not passed on the solution.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 10:38 AM
My final comment. I agree we need to find a QB in the draft. We won't win a SB until we do. I just don't agree with everyone saying Pioli is married to Cassell and refuses to bring in someone else.

There is not a single QB you point to and say we should have taken him over Cassell. I just get tired of the bitching and complaining when we have not passed on the solution.

We didn't even try to re-sign Orton, you know why?

Because he had NO interest in "competing" with Cassel.

All of the cards have been stacked in Cassel's favor, it's well-publicized.

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:39 AM
There is not a single QB you point to and say we should have taken him over Cassell. I just get tired of the bitching and complaining when we have not passed on the solution.

You can bag on Mark Sanchez all you want. But look at the last few years of his stats vs Cassel.

He's straight up better. So he would be an upgrade. That's how bad Matt is.

Ebolapox
05-01-2012, 10:39 AM
Well don't we have our Rothlesberger/Rodgers on the roster already in Stanzi. So they have tried.

Again, which QB has Pioli passed on which we should have taken???? Again the answer is none, zip, zero.

Andy dalton says 'hey.'

so, too, does joe flacco (yeah, I know, that was peterson--it's an organizational thing).

I could come up with more, but it would assume that nobody has ANY clue how good sanchez or freeman may have been in KC--their circumstances would've been different here, and MAY have had a different outcome.

the point is, we're too chickenshit, as an organization, to find out.

buddha
05-01-2012, 10:40 AM
The bolded two have been proven wrong time and again. You don't need either to win a SB. It helps, but is not vital.

Bullshit. No QB can do anything without a good OL and a dominant defense is a must. You don't have to have the '85 Bears defense, but it has to be very good.

tredadda, you and the other, "all we need is a franchise QB to win" types just need to stop. The QB is important, but it's a team game. The best QB on the planet can't get passes off laying on his back, or throw TDs to receivers who drop passes or who can't get open.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 10:42 AM
My final comment. I agree we need to find a QB in the draft. We won't win a SB until we do. I just don't agree with everyone saying Pioli is married to Cassell and refuses to bring in someone else.

There is not a single QB you point to and say we should have taken him over Cassell. I just get tired of the bitching and complaining when we have not passed on the solution.

We are never bad enough to draft high enough to get an elite QB so we will have to trade up for one. The fact that we never make an attempt to do that shows alot with how Pioli feels about Cassel and our current QB situation. Also his competition has been a journeyman QB (Quinn) three career backups (Gutierrez, Croyle, and Palko), and a 5th round draft pick (Stanzi).

rico
05-01-2012, 10:42 AM
I think you're missing the point. It's not about who has hit and who hasn't. That's not the issue. It's about the Chiefs unwillingness to even try.

Now lets talk about next year where we can't use hindsight 20/20 vision. Will there be the next Matt Stafford? or the Next Mark Sanchez? We don't know. But you've got one freaking HUGE problem if your organization doesn't have the balls to ever roll the dice.

Honestly I'm at the point where I don't even care if we swing and miss. I applaud the Dolphins for trying at QB. Because you know what you do if you miss??? You do what the Chargers did. They missed on Leaf. Sucks for them but then came back and tried again. Hit on Rivers. In the meantime, we've been treading water at QB.
You keep drafting that 1st round QB until you have that franchise guy.

This is kind of what scares me a bit about the Chiefs reaching to select a QB high.... Given how tied to Cassel this organization seems to be, I am afraid that if we reached on a QB prospect that wasn't a sure thing, and that QB did not pan out, that Pioli would be too stubborn to admit the mistake and move on to seek another QB. Basically I am worried that if we swung and missed on a QB that is considered by many to be a reach, we'd be treading water for a few more years with a different, but equally awful leader. I think other franchises are more inclined to seek a new QB when the current QB is a proven failure than the Chiefs are.

Chiefnj2
05-01-2012, 10:44 AM
My final comment. I agree we need to find a QB in the draft. We won't win a SB until we do. I just don't agree with everyone saying Pioli is married to Cassell and refuses to bring in someone else.

.

Guttierez, Palko and Quinn are proof Pioli doesn't want any real competition with Cassel.

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:45 AM
The best QB on the planet can't get passes off laying on his back, or throw TDs to receivers who drop passes or who can't get open.

Is this post from 1995? Would have had more merit back then.

It's a QB league Buddha. Got to understand that.

Aaron Rogers? Have you seen that O-line?

Then on the receivers part.... QBs make WRs. Understand that. Funny how all the top QBs in the game are lucky enough to all have great WRs. Amazing how Peyton Manning and the Colts always landed the Austin Collies of the world so stud WRs like that could get open.

The rule changes have simply made it a different game. Like it or not, it's all about the QB now. It's 80% QB. 20% everybody else.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 10:46 AM
Bullshit. No QB can do anything without a good OL and a dominant defense is a must. You don't have to have the '85 Bears defense, but it has to be very good.

tredadda, you and the other, "all we need is a franchise QB to win" types just need to stop. The QB is important, but it's a team game. The best QB on the planet can't get passes off laying on his back, or throw TDs to receivers who drop passes or who can't get open.

Good lord. Have you even watched the NFL lately?

You don't need a dominant D to win a SB.

And an average OL will suffice.

None of that matters if you don't have an Elite QB

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:49 AM
Ok I can't stand it. I'm going to ask one more time. WHOOOOOOOOOO should be have on the roster in front of Matt Cassell we could have gotten?

For the 3rd time nobody, none, zip, zero.

Believe me I'm no Matt Cassell fan, but I do live in the real world. The fact is Matt Cassell was a pretty decent QB in 2010. And if you put enough talent around him he can keep from losing games.

Back to my question. Can anyone come up with a name? I will be waiting.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 10:49 AM
Bullshit. No QB can do anything without a good OL and a dominant defense is a must. You don't have to have the '85 Bears defense, but it has to be very good.

tredadda, you and the other, "all we need is a franchise QB to win" types just need to stop. The QB is important, but it's a team game. The best QB on the planet can't get passes off laying on his back, or throw TDs to receivers who drop passes or who can't get open.


No QB can do anything without a good OL and a dominant defense is a must.

GB says hi. Also NE made the SB last year without a dominant defense.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:50 AM
.....I'm still waiting.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 10:51 AM
Ok I can't stand it. I'm going to ask one more time. WHOOOOOOOOOO should be have on the roster in front of Matt Cassell we could have gotten?

For the 3rd time nobody, none, zip, zero.

Believe me I'm no Matt Cassell fan, but I do live in the real world. The fact is Matt Cassell was a pretty decent QB in 2010. And if you put enough talent around him he can keep from losing games.

Back to my question. Can anyone come up with a name? I will be waiting.

Just keep your head in the sand.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:52 AM
Just keep your head in the sand.

I'm not familiar with "Just keep you head in the sand", who does he play for?

beach tribe
05-01-2012, 10:52 AM
I'd say virtually never. Clark is too worried that drafting a QB in the 1st will signal some sort of 'rebuild' and therefore effect sales.

Pioli or any GM is hesitant because he's basically tied to the hip with that QB. QB fails, he fails/fired.


IMO\

I'm of the opposite view - especially with the Chiefs/KC area. I think drafting a QB high in teh first would signal the Chiefs are serious about winning a championship / attempting to win one.

You're also assuming he's too stupid to know that a 1st round QB means big business. I'm sure he doesn't pay attention to any of that data.

suds79
05-01-2012, 10:55 AM
WHOOOOOOOOOO should be have on the roster in front of Matt Cassell we could have gotten?

Believe me I'm no Matt Cassell fan, but I do live in the real world. The fact is Matt Cassell was a pretty decent QB in 2010. And if you put enough talent around him he can keep from losing games.

Again, either you can't read or can't comprehend very well.

It's not about who. It's about being too much of a p#$$y to try. To try to draft a QB high. Back when you don't know how they'll pan out. Back when it's a gamble. That's where the Chiefs freeze up.

But to answer your question? (bolded part)

I'd much rather have Joe Flacco easly. I'm not a big fan of his but Mark Sanchez is flat out better. Would I rather have him over Tyson Jackson? You bet.

Would I have rather had Josh Freeman over Tyson Jackson? You bet.

They could have easily have produced what Matt has and probably have at least completed a full season for us. Something Matt still hasn't done.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:55 AM
......I'm still waiting for the name of the QB who would take us to the SB which we passed on.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:56 AM
Your just throwing out variations of average now.

BigCatDaddy
05-01-2012, 10:56 AM
......I'm still waiting for the name of the QB who would take us to the SB which we passed on.

You are aware you can trade up and make a pick, yes?

BigCatDaddy
05-01-2012, 10:57 AM
Your just throwing out variations of average now.

Which is better then what we have and they are asending players.

Shox
05-01-2012, 10:58 AM
You are aware you can trade up and make a pick, yes?

Fine. Give me the name we could have reasonably traded up for? No don't give me Stafford, Bradford, Luck or RGIII. No way we had the goods to make a deal for any of those guys.

Ebolapox
05-01-2012, 10:59 AM
.....I'm still waiting.

hit the control button and the F button on the first page (assuming you have 80 posts per page), and click H5N1. you missed it, man. so sorry for your vision problems.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 10:59 AM
Ok I can't stand it. I'm going to ask one more time. WHOOOOOOOOOO should be have on the roster in front of Matt Cassell we could have gotten?

For the 3rd time nobody, none, zip, zero.

Believe me I'm no Matt Cassell fan, but I do live in the real world. The fact is Matt Cassell was a pretty decent QB in 2010. And if you put enough talent around him he can keep from losing games. Back to my question. Can anyone come up with a name? I will be waiting.

There is so much wrong with the bolded part.

1. He was good against crap teams. He crapped his pants against good teams.

2. You need a QB that makes your team better, not one that needs to be protected by a cast of all stars.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 10:59 AM
......I'm still waiting for the name of the QB who would take us to the SB which we passed on.

Hindsight isn't 20/20. Our team isn't built exactly the same as anybody else out there and our schedule isn't the same either.

It's entirely possible that ANY QB, drafted by ANY TEAM, in the last 3 years, could have come here and made it to a Super Bowl.

Environmental factors influence play.

Shox
05-01-2012, 11:00 AM
There is so much wrong with the bolded part.

1. He was good against crap teams. He crapped his pants against good teams.

2. You need a QB that makes your team better, not one that needs to be protected by a cast of all stars.


I totally agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But there is not one out there. That is my point.

BigCatDaddy
05-01-2012, 11:00 AM
Fine. Give me the name we could have reasonably traded up for? No don't give me Stafford, Bradford, Luck or RGIII. No way we had the goods to make a deal for any of those guys.

Pre Pioli, but Matt Ryan, or Ryan Tannehill this year.

RGIII could have been had for the right price. I, for one, don't think the Redskins over paid.

beach tribe
05-01-2012, 11:02 AM
Is this post from 1995? Would have had more merit back then.

It's a QB league Buddha. Got to understand that.

Aaron Rogers? Have you seen that O-line?

Then on the receivers part.... QBs make WRs. Understand that. Funny how all the top QBs in the game are lucky enough to all have great WRs. Amazing how Peyton Manning and the Colts always landed the Austin Collies of the world so stud WRs like that could get open.

The rule changes have simply made it a different game. Like it or not, it's all about the QB now. It's 80% QB. 20% everybody else.

That's a little extreme. True that you're not winning shit w/o a great one, but a great one won't win one without his team, and therefore may never really be considered great. I'd say it's about 40% QB 60% everyone else. All those QB you talk about, were also on very talented teams. Think about.
If Bob Sanders doesn't go D-Bo on everyone during the Colts run, Peyton would have never had one, and he's one of the best that ever played.

Shox
05-01-2012, 11:05 AM
Pre Pioli, but Matt Ryan, or Ryan Tannehill this year.

RGIII could have been had for the right price. I, for one, don't think the Redskins over paid.

Oh my gosh. You think we had the fire power to trade up to #2 ahead of the Redskins. Ridiculious.

Tannehill, certainly could be wrong, but trading up for a QB with 2 TOTAL years of experience to be your franshise QB does not seem like a very good gamble. Especially considering it would have cost a ton.

Coogs
05-01-2012, 11:05 AM
I totally agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But there is not one out there. That is my point.

You never know what Sanchez may have turned out to be if he would have been drafted here. He might have been able to sit for a year or so before being asked to be a starter. And he would be away from the media/circus of Ryan's Jets.

Would Sanchez have led us to the Super Bowl yet? Probably not. But a year or so to sit, followed by a year to year and a half of starting now, and he might be right on pace with the rest of our team to take the next step.

Can your boy Cassel take us to that next step? I have my doubts.

Shox
05-01-2012, 11:08 AM
Can your boy Cassel take us to that next step? I have my doubts.


WHOA!!!! He is not my boy. I want him gone as much as anybody. But, I don't want to go from a guy who can be a game manager and allow the rest of the team to win games to a guy who can't even do that much.

Coogs
05-01-2012, 11:12 AM
WHOA!!!! He is not my boy. I want him gone as much as anybody. But, I don't want to go from a guy who can be a game manager and allow the rest of the team to win games to a guy who can't even do that much.

Like I said, who is to say Sanchez would not have been able to do that now if he would have been drafted by the Chiefs? I don't know... nor do you? Many here have suggested he needed to sit a year at least before starting, and that being thrust into the Jets situation hurt him more than helped him. Had he been brought along like Aaron Rodgers... who knows. He wasn't. So the point is moot.

rico
05-01-2012, 11:13 AM
WHOA!!!! He is not my boy. I want him gone as much as anybody. But, I don't want to go from a guy who can be a game manager and allow the rest of the team to win games to a guy who can't even do that much.

And that's what I'm afraid of as well. IF we ever select a QB high, he better be elite, because we'll be strapped to him for a long time (as the Cassel situation has shown). If Pioli has a lot invested ($ or 1st round pick), he seems to be stubborn in terms of making a change when it is proven that the player won't take us anywhere.

BigCatDaddy
05-01-2012, 11:14 AM
Oh my gosh. You think we had the fire power to trade up to #2 ahead of the Redskins. Ridiculious.

Tannehill, certainly could be wrong, but trading up for a QB with 2 TOTALLY years of experience to be your franshise QB does not seem like a very good gamble. Especially considering it would have cost a ton.

Why not? The only advantage they had was a 5 pick difference this year.

Too much? Dalls moved up from 14 to 6 and just gave up a 2nd? We just had to go from 11 to 7.

rico
05-01-2012, 11:17 AM
Why not? The only advantage they had was a 5 pick difference this year.

Too much? Dalls moved up from 14 to 6 and just gave up a 2nd? We just had to go from 11 to 7.

And then the questionable Tannehill ends up failing and we are tied to him for 4 years because Pioli invested a #1 pick in him and won't move on from the mistake or even admit it. That's my fear. I'd be more content with drafting a Tannehill type if I were a fan of a different team.

BigCatDaddy
05-01-2012, 11:20 AM
And then the questionable Tannehill ends up failing and we are tied to him for 4 years because Pioli invested a #1 pick in him and won't move on from the mistake or even admit it. That's my fear. I'd be more content with drafting a Tannehill type if I were a fan of a different team.

You mean if you had a different GM?

saphojunkie
05-01-2012, 11:21 AM
The bolded two have been proven wrong time and again. You don't need either to win a SB. It helps, but is not vital.

Good thing we're closer to those two than the others...

Shox
05-01-2012, 11:25 AM
I have no problem on passing on Tannehill. I just don't think you take a guy with the 8th pick who never played the position until 2 years ago.

The guy I wish we would have landed in Andy Dalton.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 11:26 AM
Oh my gosh. You think we had the fire power to trade up to #2 ahead of the Redskins. Ridiculious.

Tannehill, certainly could be wrong, but trading up for a QB with 2 TOTAL years of experience to be your franshise QB does not seem like a very good gamble. Especially considering it would have cost a ton.

Which makes more sense, drafting a QB that has elite physical tools but only 2 total years of experience?

Or drafting a NT with elite physical tools but only 20-some tackles in almost THREE FULL YEARS worth of games?

Shox
05-01-2012, 11:30 AM
Which makes more sense, drafting a QB that has elite physical tools but only 2 total years of experience?

Or drafting a NT with elite physical tools but only 20-some tackles in almost THREE FULL YEARS worth of games?

Well we did not have a choice between the two to begin with. But, I would have gone with Poe either way. I (as well as most experts) think he will be an very good NT. Those guys are almost as hard to find as a QB.

You don't know which way Pioli would have gone at 11 if he had the choice.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 11:32 AM
Well we did not have a choice between the two to begin with.

They could have traded up. We have no idea how probably it was but it was certainly at least possible.

But, I would have gone with Poe either way. I (as well as most experts) think he will be an very good NT. Those guys are almost as hard to find as a QB.

You're being liberal in saying "most" experts. It's almost 50/50 actually.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 11:33 AM
That's a little extreme. True that you're not winning shit w/o a great one, but a great one won't win one without his team, and therefore may never really be considered great. I'd say it's about 40% QB 60% everyone else. All those QB you talk about, were also on very talented teams. Think about.
If Bob Sanders doesn't go D-Bo on everyone during the Colts run, Peyton would have never had one, and he's one of the best that ever played.

40% QB?

No way. Its 60% QB.

The Giants won with a horrible running game.

Why? They have an elite QB.

rico
05-01-2012, 11:33 AM
You mean if you had a different GM?

Yeah, pretty much.

ChiefsCountry
05-01-2012, 11:56 AM
Chiefs could win playoff games right now with Mark Sanchez. Potentially even get to a Super Bowl with him. We are as talented as the Jets squads that he won games with, not to mention I would take our offensive coaches we have had over Brian Schottenheimer any day/

BoneKrusher
05-01-2012, 12:04 PM
1983?

CrazyHorse
05-01-2012, 12:08 PM
ROFLChiefs could win playoff games right now with Mark Sanchez. Potentially even get to a Super Bowl with him. We are as talented as the Jets squads that he won games with, not to mention I would take our offensive coaches we have had over Brian Schottenheimer any day/

ROFL

They had the #1 defense and #1 run game and Sanchez still couldn't get them there.

OnTheWarpath58
05-01-2012, 12:31 PM
ROFL

ROFL

They had the #1 defense and #1 run game and Sanchez still couldn't get them there.

Goddamn, some of you are fucking clueless.

He's what, 24 years old? He has another 10 years to improve.

And he's already won more playoff games in two seasons (all on the road) than this organization has in 20 years.

60.5% completion in playoffs. 9TD's/3INT's. 94.3 QBR. 4-2 record. Clutch throws at clutch times.

He's been to the AFC Championship game twice.

According to CP, we're more talented than almost every other team in the league - so you folks sound ridiculous when you say he couldn't win playoff games/Championships with this team.

You can't have it both ways, folks.

rico
05-01-2012, 12:39 PM
Speaking of Sanchez, I watched him twice (that I can remember and excluding ESPN clips) this year. I watched him vs. the Broncos and watched him vs. the Chiefs. Thought he looked like ass vs. the Broncos, but damn, he looked very good against us.

OnTheWarpath58
05-01-2012, 12:46 PM
Speaking of Sanchez, I watched him twice (that I can remember and excluding ESPN clips) this year. I watched him vs. the Broncos and watched him vs. the Chiefs. Thought he looked like ass vs. the Broncos, but damn, he looked very good against us.

Against our "Top 5" defense, no less.

Highest QB rating of the year, highest YPA of the year and 4th best completion percentage.

CrazyHorse
05-01-2012, 01:09 PM
Goddamn, some of you are ****ing clueless.

He's what, 24 years old? He has another 10 years to improve.

And he's already won more playoff games in two seasons (all on the road) than this organization has in 20 years.

60.5% completion in playoffs. 9TD's/3INT's. 94.3 QBR. 4-2 record. Clutch throws at clutch times.

He's been to the AFC Championship game twice.

According to CP, we're more talented than almost every other team in the league - so you folks sound ridiculous when you say he couldn't win playoff games/Championships with this team.

You can't have it both ways, folks.

1st let me say I appreciate your condescending tone. It tells me more than your post does. Your post is still full of the same rhetoric it has been for years now. Which means you are as oblibvious as they come around here. Congratulations.

Fact is, I never said the Chiefs were better than the Jets team. I believe someone with even the most basic comprehension skills could have arrived at this when I said "even with the #1 defense and #1 run game in the league Sanchez still couldn't get to the Superbowl."

Have the Chiefs ever had the #1 defense and #1 run game? If not, then this statement can be construed to mean I dont see the Chiefs as a better team than the Jets team. So even though it makes you feel popular and powerful to talk down to people, it is not only counter productive, it dont make you right.

Fact is when Sanchez enjoyed these benefits the Chiefs did not, he still was statistically similar or inferior to the Chiefs QB. I understand your still trying to save face from a few years ago with the whole Sanchez embarassment. But its time to let it go man. You were a moron then and only perpetuating it now by hanging on this shit the way you are.

If you see Sanchez as a franchize QB, you are in no position to debate football topics.

Niether of these QB will ever amount to shit in the NFL.

p.s. see what I mean about talking down to people? See how counter productive it is? i look forward to you proving me right, as always. :)

OnTheWarpath58
05-01-2012, 01:18 PM
1st let me say I appreciate your condescending tone. It tells me more than your post does. Your post is still full of the same rhetoric it has been for years now. Which means you are as oblibvious as they come around here. Congratulations.

Fact is, I never said the Chiefs were better than the Jets team. I believe someone with even the most basic comprehension skills could have arrived at this when I said "even with the #1 defense and #1 run game in the league Sanchez still couldn't get to the Superbowl."

Have the Chiefs ever had the #1 defense and #1 run game? If not, then this statement can be construed to mean I dont see the Chiefs as a better team than the Jets team. So even though it makes you feel popular and powerful to talk down to people, it is not only counter productive, it dont make you right.

Fact is when Sanchez enjoyed these benefits the Chiefs did not, he still was statistically similar or inferior to the Chiefs QB. I understand your still trying to save face from a few years ago with the whole Sanchez embarassment. But its time to let it go man. You were a moron then and only perpetuating it now by hanging on this shit the way you are.

If you see Sanchez as a franchize QB, you are in no position to debate football topics.

Niether of these QB will ever amount to shit in the NFL.

p.s. see what I mean about talking down to people? See how counter productive it is? i look forward to you proving me right, as always. :)

Wow, narcissistic much?

Not all about you, Chief. Speaking to the whole.

Just quoting your post because you were the last to make an idiotic comment bashing a QB who's done more than any KC QB in the last 20 years.

Even if Sanchez NEVER improves, he's already proved more and accomplished more than any of our QB's.

Worth the risk, IMO. Sadly, our GM has such an enormous ego he thinks he can turn career backups into elite players.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 01:19 PM
1st let me say I appreciate your condescending tone. It tells me more than your post does. Your post is still full of the same rhetoric it has been for years now. Which means you are as oblibvious as they come around here. Congratulations.

Fact is, I never said the Chiefs were better than the Jets team. I believe someone with even the most basic comprehension skills could have arrived at this when I said "even with the #1 defense and #1 run game in the league Sanchez still couldn't get to the Superbowl."

Have the Chiefs ever had the #1 defense and #1 run game? If not, then this statement can be construed to mean I dont see the Chiefs as a better team than the Jets team. So even though it makes you feel popular and powerful to talk down to people, it is not only counter productive, it dont make you right.

Fact is when Sanchez enjoyed these benefits the Chiefs did not, he still was statistically similar or inferior to the Chiefs QB. I understand your still trying to save face from a few years ago with the whole Sanchez embarassment. But its time to let it go man. You were a moron then and only perpetuating it now by hanging on this shit the way you are.

If you see Sanchez as a franchize QB, you are in no position to debate football topics.

Niether of these QB will ever amount to shit in the NFL.

p.s. see what I mean about talking down to people? See how counter productive it is? i look forward to you proving me right, as always. :)

The Chiefs were the #1 rushing team in 2010.

CrazyHorse
05-01-2012, 01:21 PM
Wow, narcissistic much?

Not all about you, Chief. Speaking to the whole.

Just quoting your post because you were the last to make an idiotic comment bashing a QB who's done more than any KC QB in the last 20 years.

Even if Sanchez NEVER improves, he's already proved more and accomplished more than any of our QB's.

Worth the risk, IMO. Sadly, our GM has such an enormous ego he thinks he can turn career backups into elite players.

Turn on a TV. You'll see the whole world is an idiot.


Are you saying my comment was incorrect in any way?

CrazyHorse
05-01-2012, 01:22 PM
The Chiefs were the #1 rushing team in 2010.

Indeed. Where was the D ranked?

Count Zarth
05-01-2012, 01:22 PM
Pioli needs to win ASAP and Romeo is flat old. Neither one of them wants anything to do with a rookie QB.

Reason #4502819 I didn't want to hire Romeo Crennel.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 01:26 PM
Indeed. Where was the D ranked?

Um, I don't care.

You stated that Sanchez needed the #1 rushing game AND the #1 defense to make the AFC Championship game.

They made the AFC Championship in 2010, yet the CHIEFS had the #1 rushing attack. :hmmm:

Maybe you should spend less time admonishing other people for being condescending and look in the mirror, champ.

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 01:26 PM
Reason #4502819 I didn't want to hire Romeo Crennel.

You really needed over 4 and half MILLION reasons not to hire Romeo? I only needed 1. :)

Count Zarth
05-01-2012, 01:27 PM
......I'm still waiting for the name of the QB who would take us to the SB which we passed on.

I KEEP SAYING IT:

We would be a lot better off with Josh Freeman right now than Matt Cassel.

He had a down season last year, but looked awesome his 2nd season, and he's not playing with much talent in TB.

CrazyHorse
05-01-2012, 01:29 PM
Um, I don't care.

You stated that Sanchez needed the #1 rushing game AND the #1 defense to make the AFC Championship game.

They made the AFC Championship in 2010, yet the CHIEFS had the #1 rushing attack. :hmmm:

Maybe you should spend less time admonishing other people for being condescending and look in the mirror, champ.

Your timing may have something to do with it. Either way, both comments are correct and valid. Thats good enough for me.

Sorry if I got it wrong.

keg in kc
05-01-2012, 01:29 PM
I'm going with "never".

htismaqe
05-01-2012, 01:34 PM
I'm going with "never".

You win!

Congratulations, you win another shit sandwich, courtesy of the Kansas City Chiefs...

OnTheWarpath58
05-01-2012, 01:35 PM
I KEEP SAYING IT:

We would be a lot better off with Josh Freeman right now than Matt Cassel.

He had a down season last year, but looked awesome his 2nd season, and he's not playing with much talent in TB.

And we'd have 10 more years to see improvement. He's better than what we have now, and he's in his early 20's.

Age is a HUGE component here, people.

Setsuna
05-01-2012, 01:37 PM
Seriously?

Anyone who thinks Poe is fat/lazy doesn't pay attention, and are bitching to bitch.

Dude isn't fat at all. He carries 350lbs the best you can.

Oh geez. When he gets home you can curl up next to him and cry to him about it. Wimp.

suds79
05-01-2012, 01:38 PM
I KEEP SAYING IT:

We would be a lot better off with Josh Freeman right now than Matt Cassel.

He had a down season last year, but looked awesome his 2nd season, and he's not playing with much talent in TB.

I'd trade Matt Cassel for Josh Freeman straight up no questions asked. I don't think there's a GM outside of Scott Pioli who wouldn't do the same.

Setsuna
05-01-2012, 01:39 PM
.....I'm still waiting.

Anyone bitch! You happy? Now STFU.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 01:40 PM
I'd trade Matt Cassel for Josh Freeman straight up no questions asked. I don't think there's a GM outside of Scott Pioli who wouldn't do the same.

Yup

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 01:43 PM
And we'd have 10 more years to see improvement. He's better than what we have now, and he's in his early 20's.

Age is a HUGE component here, people.

10 years?

One would think he'd reach his full potential by 28. That's 7 years of development.

If he's still playing at his current level by then, NY should move on.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2012, 01:44 PM
I'd trade Matt Cassel for Josh Freeman straight up no questions asked. I don't think there's a GM outside of Scott Pioli who wouldn't do the same.

I would assume the Tampa brass had suffered major brain trauma to do that.

ChiefsCountry
05-01-2012, 02:01 PM
ROFL

ROFL

They had the #1 defense and #1 run game and Sanchez still couldn't get them there.

As a fucking rookie QB. But keeping being the stupid fucker that you are.

rico
05-01-2012, 02:16 PM
I would assume the Tampa brass had suffered major brain trauma to do that.

Yep... they'd be missing something between their buckin' ears to make that trade.

Bane
05-01-2012, 02:18 PM
Goddamn, some of you are ****ing clueless.

He's what, 24 years old? He has another 10 years to improve.

And he's already won more playoff games in two seasons (all on the road) than this organization has in 20 years.

60.5% completion in playoffs. 9TD's/3INT's. 94.3 QBR. 4-2 record. Clutch throws at clutch times.

He's been to the AFC Championship game twice.

According to CP, we're more talented than almost every other team in the league - so you folks sound ridiculous when you say he couldn't win playoff games/Championships with this team.

You can't have it both ways, folks.

Awesome!!!:clap:

beach tribe
05-01-2012, 04:35 PM
40% QB?

No way. Its 60% QB.

The Giants won with a horrible running game.

Why? They have an elite QB.

And pass rushers out the yin.

CrazyHorse
05-01-2012, 05:24 PM
As a ****ing rookie QB. But keeping being the stupid ****er that you are.

Not sure what the problem is with this quote. Its 100% accurate and true.

You Sanchez boys are a touchy bunch. So I have no choice but to "keeping being stupid". Because that statement is indisputable fact. Besides, anybody that has watched a few Jets games know how good Sanchez is. I dont need a statitical breakdown. Maybe he'll be great someday. I doubt it, but who knows? However, right now he's carried by his team. He'll have a good game now and then, or a half. But he is in the bottom 10 qbs in the league. Thats being kind.

Why would you want that here? Thats not fixing the problem. It a lateral move at best. If its an upgrade it would be minimal.

So whats the big deal?

Okie_Apparition
05-01-2012, 05:32 PM
This 1st round QB obsession is just not productive

Tombstone RJ
05-01-2012, 06:47 PM
Since the Chiefs started drafting players they have drafted 20 QBs 2 of which were in the first round (Todd Blackledge, 1983 and Steve Fuller, 1979). Only 7 QBs have been drafted in the first 3 rounds (Croyle, Blundin, Elkins, Blackledge, Fuller, Jaynes, and Livingston). By way of comparison, only 3 positions have seen less draft picks (C, K, and P). Furthermore, Jacksonville and Carolina have each drafted 2 QBs in the first round since entering the league in 1995 as well as Baltimore since 1996. Only Houston has drafted less QBs in the 1st round (1).

Total draft picks (1st round picks)
Total 523 (47)
QB 20 (2)
RB 75 (7)
WR 67 (5)
TE 26 (2)
C 17 (0)
G 35 (5)
T 50 (7)
DE 43 (5)
DT 40 (6)
LB 61 (3)
DB 80 (5)
P 5 (0)
K 4 (0)

I find it amazing that the two players that touch the ball on every play are two of the worst drafted positions.

Interesting... it's a little strange that kc hasn't drafted more QBs in the early rounds. That is kind of wierd. It got me thinking about the Broncos and off the top of my head they have drafted 3 QBs in the first round since 1983 (Maddox, Cutler and Tebow) and 4 QBs in the first 2 rounds (we just got Osweiler in the 2nd round). The Broncos have drafted 5 QBs in the first 3 rounds since 1983 (Griese was taken in 3rd round of 1999 draft).

So that's 5 QBs in the first 3 rounds SINCE Elway.

Anyone got a clue as to what Sandy Eggo or the faiders have done since 1983 as far as drafting QBs in the first 3 rounds?

Chiefnj2
05-01-2012, 06:56 PM
Interesting... it's a little strange that kc hasn't drafted more QBs in the early rounds. That is kind of wierd. It got me thinking about the Broncos and off the top of my head they have drafted 4 QBs in the first round since 1983 (Elway, Maddox, Cutler and Tebow) and 5 QBs in the first 2 rounds (we just got Osweiler in the 2nd round). The Broncos have drafted 6 QBs in the first 3 rounds since 1983 (Griese was taken in 3rd round of 1999 draft).

So that's 5 QBs in the first 3 rounds SINCE Elway was drafted in 1986.

Anyone got a clue as to what Sandy Eggo or the faiders have done since 1983 as far as drafting QBs in the first 3 rounds?

Since '87 the Bolts took Tolliver, Leaf, Breese, Eli/Rivers and Whitehurst.

notorious
05-01-2012, 07:03 PM
It is so easy to say we should draft a 1st round QB and think all the problems with the QB position are solved.

Name one, just one QB we could have drafted or reasonably traded up to get since Pioli has been the GM.

I'm waiting.......

Ok let me help you. NONE, ZIP, ZERO.

2009: Stafford went #1. Detroit was not going trade the first pick.
We passed on Sanchez who everyone was demanding we draft and he will probably loss his job to Tebow who can't hit the broadside of barn from 25 yards. Would the Chiefs situation be any different with Sanchez over Cassell? No.

Josh Freeman jury is out, but looks like another QB who does not have enough accuracy to be a franchise QB.

2010: Bradford went #1 and again the Rams were not going to give the pick up.
We passed on Tim Tebow. I don't think it even needs to be discussed.

2011: Luck and RGIII. We were not in position to trade up to get either one. Tannahill....way to much risk to pay the ransom to trade up to get him.

The Chiefs have been much better served at rebuilding the starting roster and depth. Now we are in position to trade the farm to get a legit QB if needed. The problem will be the position we are trading from will not allow us to trade up to the 1st or 2nd pick. So we are still going to be in a situation of hoping we hit on a Mark Sanchez type QB.

So everyone just shut up about us not drafting a 1st round QB until the current regime acutally passes on one worth having on the roster.


True Fandom 101.

jspchief
05-01-2012, 07:30 PM
True Fandom 101.

I've said it before. Chiefs fans deserve what they get.

Shox can't get his 100% guaranteed franchise QB so he's content with 30 years of 7-9 to 9-7.

Fans don't want to risk being tied to a few years of Mark Sanchez, so they get 4 decades of being tied to Grbac, Huard, and Cassel.

The Hunts have been giving this fanbase exactly what they ask for.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 08:16 PM
This 1st round QB obsession is just not productive

Nor is banking on 2-7th round QBs or career journeymen. Might as well obsess over a 1st rounder in the hopes that we might actually get one.

O.city
05-01-2012, 08:18 PM
I've said it before. Chiefs fans deserve what they get.

Shox can't get his 100% guaranteed franchise QB so he's content with 30 years of 7-9 to 9-7.

Fans don't want to risk being tied to a few years of Mark Sanchez, so they get 4 decades of being tied to Grbac, Huard, and Cassel.

The Hunts have been giving this fanbase exactly what they ask for.

And what exactly are the fans supposed to do?

OnTheWarpath58
05-01-2012, 08:18 PM
I've said it before. Chiefs fans deserve what they get.

Shox can't get his 100% guaranteed franchise QB so he's content with 30 years of 7-9 to 9-7.

Fans don't want to risk being tied to a few years of Mark Sanchez, so they get 4 decades of being tied to Grbac, Huard, and Cassel.

The Hunts have been giving this fanbase exactly what they ask for.

Can't remember if this was from you or Parker, but:

Mediocrity: The Official Treadmill of the Kansas City Chiefs.

keg in kc
05-01-2012, 08:20 PM
Yes, me not wanting Mark Sanchez is why we didn't draft him. It's my fault. Pioli called me on the batphone and I said no. Sorry, guys.

Rausch
05-01-2012, 08:20 PM
Yes, me not wanting Mark Sanchez is why we didn't draft him. It's my fault. Pioli called me on the batphone and I said no. Sorry, guys.

I appreciate that...

Fruit Ninja
05-01-2012, 08:23 PM
I do know that we are one of the worst post season teams in the last 40 years. We are the only team to not draft a Qb in the first round in the last 25 Years. Yep its that bad.

tredadda
05-01-2012, 08:26 PM
I do know that we are one of the worst post season teams in the last 40 years. We are the only team to not draft a Qb in the first round in the last 25 Years. Yep its that bad.

Is there a coincidence there? I do believe so.

Rausch
05-01-2012, 08:28 PM
I do know that we are one of the worst post season teams in the last 40 years. We are the only team to not draft a Qb in the first round in the last 25 Years. Yep its that bad.

Could be worse.


We could have drafted multiple 1st round QB's and still be the Browns...

tredadda
05-01-2012, 08:30 PM
Could be worse.


We could have drafted multiple 1st round QB's and still be the Browns...

In the past 15 years we have the same number of SB wins, appearances, and playoff wins.

notorious
05-01-2012, 08:37 PM
In the past 15 years we have the same number of SB wins, appearances, and playoff wins.

There you go.

Rausch
05-01-2012, 08:44 PM
In the past 15 years we have the same number of SB wins, appearances, and playoff wins.

And they have drafted two 1st round QBs.

But to be fair, I'm thinking they went a few years without a team. They started off all over again as an expansion team.

That probably makes our fail a bit more...

tredadda
05-01-2012, 08:48 PM
And they have drafted two 1st round QBs.

But to be fair, I'm thinking they went a few years without a team. They started off all over again as an expansion team.

That probably makes our fail a bit more...

True, but I at least give them credit for trying at QB even if it has been unsuccessful so far.

Chief Roundup
05-01-2012, 08:51 PM
"Next Year" :rolleyes:

Rausch
05-01-2012, 08:52 PM
True, but I at least give them credit for trying at QB even if it has been unsuccessful so far.

Had the team been run better I definitely think Couch could have been a franchise guy. I don't really blame him.

Quinn I'm just not sure about. He has the IQ, the arm, and the maturity. That said, in the only 2 games I can remember seeing him play he made some really $3itty decisions. I don't know if he just "Farved-it" (thinks his arm can make the throw when he can't) or if he just never adjusted to the NFL pressure a QB gets from a defense...

tredadda
05-01-2012, 08:57 PM
Had the team been run better I definitely think Couch could have been a franchise guy. I don't really blame him.

Quinn I'm just not sure about. He has the IQ, the arm, and the maturity. That said, in the only 2 games I can remember seeing him play he made some really $3itty decisions. I don't know if he just "Farved-it" (thinks his arm can make the throw when he can't) or if he just never adjusted to the NFL pressure a QB gets from a defense...

That is very possible. Oh and Cleveland has drafted 3 first round QBs, not two. It didn't hit me until you mentioned Couch and Quinn. They just drafted Weeden this time.

jspchief
05-02-2012, 12:36 AM
Yes, me not wanting Mark Sanchez is why we didn't draft him. It's my fault. Pioli called me on the batphone and I said no. Sorry, guys.

I didn't say it was the fans' fault. I said they deserve what they've been getting.

jspchief
05-02-2012, 12:46 AM
Think about the logic behind the Chiefs' approach to finding a starting QB.

They are so scared of the odds of them being able to find/develop a starting QB. So instead they put their faith in another team being able to find 2 starting QBs, and trading one to KC.

That's essentially the formula they've relied on for the past 40 years.

keg in kc
05-02-2012, 12:51 AM
I didn't say it was the fans' fault. I said they deserve what they've been getting.Oh, I get it. I deserve the Chiefs never taking a QB because I didn't want them to take Sanchez. Not wanting to take that one specific guy at 3 gives me more negative karma points than wanting them to take Locker or Gebbert or Ponder or Dalton or Mallett or Clausen or Stafford or Freeman or Ryan or Flacco or Quinn or Kolb or Leinert or Cutler or Rodgers or Campbell or Rivers or Roethlisberger or Losman or Leftwich or Boller or Grossman or Harrington or Ramsey or Pennington or McNabb or Smith or Culpepper or McNown. I get what I deserve because not wanting to take a gamble on Sanchez (we can throw Tannehill in this discussion too) means that I don't ever at any point want to take a gamble on a quarterback. Because apparently it's either all or nothing, you're either a whore for quarterback bending over and grabbing your ankles shouting "I don't care who it is just just give it to me!" or you're a shy little virgin in a white dress with a chastity belt who tosses the key out the window whenever the opportunity arrives. You can't just, you know, not like a quarterback. Or something.

I'm so tired I'm not sure that whole analogy even makes sense to me.

jspchief
05-02-2012, 01:02 AM
Oh, I get it. I deserve the Chiefs never taking a QB because I didn't want them to take Sanchez. Not wanting to take that one specific guy at 3 gives me more negative karma points than wanting them to take Locker or Gebbert or Ponder or Dalton or Mallett or Clausen or Stafford or Freeman or Ryan or Flacco or Quinn or Kolb or Leinert or Cutler or Rodgers or Campbell or Rivers or Roethlisberger or Losman or Leftwich or Boller or Grossman or Harrington or Ramsey or Pennington or McNabb or Smith or Culpepper or McNown. I get what I deserve because not wanting to take a gamble on Sanchez (we can throw Tannehill in this discussion too) means that I don't ever at any point want to take a gamble on a quarterback. Because apparently it's either all or nothing, you're either a whore for quarterback bending over and grabbing your ankles shouting "I don't care who it is just just give it to me!" or you're a shy little virgin in a white dress with a chastity belt who tosses the key out the window whenever the opportunity arrives. You can't just, you know, not like a quarterback. Or something.

I'm so tired I'm not sure that whole analogy even makes sense to me.

They've been doing it for 39 years. Sanchez is hardly the only chance this organization has had to draft a QB in that span.

acesn8s
05-02-2012, 07:31 AM
The bolded two have been proven wrong time and again. You don't need either to win a SB. It helps, but is not vital.7 times since 1970 a team did not have a top 10 defense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 10 offense.

8 times since 1970 a team did not have a top 10 offense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 2 defense.

31 times the SB winning team had the top 2 ranked offense or defense. 20 times the team had the top ranked offense or defense.

Who was the one exception? The '07 Giants.

I'm not looking for the top ranked offense. I just want a coordinator that isn't a complete buffoon and a QB with enough time to manage a good game. With that said a defense is a must. If the defense is sacrificed then the offense must be able to score at will.

acesn8s
05-02-2012, 07:34 AM
Seriously? Last year NE made the SB with one of the worst defenses in the league. The year before GB won it with an average defense and awful O-Line. That was just the last two years.GB had the 2nd rank defense that year.

KC Tattoo
05-02-2012, 07:39 AM
Think about the logic behind the Chiefs' approach to finding a starting QB.

They are so scared of the odds of them being able to find/develop a starting QB. So instead they put their faith in another team being able to find 2 starting QBs, and trading one to KC.

That's essentially the formula they've relied on for the past 40 years.

I call it the Todd Blackledge curse.

htismaqe
05-02-2012, 07:41 AM
Had the team been run better I definitely think Couch could have been a franchise guy. I don't really blame him.

Quinn I'm just not sure about. He has the IQ, the arm, and the maturity. That said, in the only 2 games I can remember seeing him play he made some really $3itty decisions. I don't know if he just "Farved-it" (thinks his arm can make the throw when he can't) or if he just never adjusted to the NFL pressure a QB gets from a defense...

Tim Couch was the first Division 1-A QB to play for Mr. Mike Leech...there are no coincidences...

acesn8s
05-02-2012, 07:49 AM
What are the rookie QBs going to make this year compared to Cassel? Is the cost of drafting a QB in the first that significant? Nobody says that you must play the guy that you drafted. Look at Carolina. They drafted Clausen then Newton. Jimmy sat Cam played.

Reerun_KC
05-02-2012, 07:50 AM
The first time this team drafts a 1 rd QB there will be a riot, fire and pitchforks in front of Arrowhead...

When the Chiefs start jeapordizing the 7--9/9-7 seasons with hope of making noise in the playoffs, fans will revolt.

Its more about the party in the parking lot than the product on the field.

htismaqe
05-02-2012, 07:53 AM
What are the rookie QBs going to make this year compared to Cassel? Is the cost of drafting a QB in the first that significant? Nobody says that you must play the guy that you drafted. Look at Carolina. They drafted Clausen then Newton. Jimmy sat Cam played.

With the new CBA, it's probably a good idea to draft a 1st round QB every year until you find "the one".

tredadda
05-02-2012, 08:01 AM
7 times since 1970 a team did not have a top 10 defense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 10 offense.

8 times since 1970 a team did not have a top 10 offense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 2 defense.

31 times the SB winning team had the top 2 ranked offense or defense. 20 times the team had the top ranked offense or defense.

Who was the one exception? The '07 Giants.

I'm not looking for the top ranked offense. I just want a coordinator that isn't a complete buffoon and a QB with enough time to manage a good game. With that said a defense is a must. If the defense is sacrificed then the offense must be able to score at will.

In response to your post

1. Using 1970 as a gauge for your SB statistics is misleading. The reason for that is how much the league has changed since then. Then defenses could dominate, now with all the rule changes offenses rule. It is no surprise that 5,000 yards passing went from being a superior feat to a meh thing. Not saying good defenses are not still of value, just not like they used to be.

2. With that being said, the QB position has taken on more importance. The days of a game manager carrying his team are dying. The teams that succeed are the ones that have a QB that can dominate.

3. I agree that you can't sacrifice defense completely for offense. The 2000's Chiefs are a fine example of that. But what I am saying is that a great o-line, or a great defense is not vital anymore to the success or failure of a team, especially if they have a dominant QB. The rules have just changed that much.

acesn8s
05-02-2012, 08:55 AM
In response to your post

1. Using 1970 as a gauge for your SB statistics is misleading. The reason for that is how much the league has changed since then. Then defenses could dominate, now with all the rule changes offenses rule. It is no surprise that 5,000 yards passing went from being a superior feat to a meh thing. Not saying good defenses are not still of value, just not like they used to be.

2. With that being said, the QB position has taken on more importance. The days of a game manager carrying his team are dying. The teams that succeed are the ones that have a QB that can dominate.

3. I agree that you can't sacrifice defense completely for offense. The 2000's Chiefs are a fine example of that. But what I am saying is that a great o-line, or a great defense is not vital anymore to the success or failure of a team, especially if they have a dominant QB. The rules have just changed that much.What year do you want me to use? And why? What rules have changed that makes the year that you choose so significant?

htismaqe
05-02-2012, 08:59 AM
What year do you want me to use? And why? What rules have changed that makes the year that you choose so significant?

You could use 1993, since that was the first year of Plan B free agency. Prior to then, it was much easier for teams to field BOTH a top defense AND top offense.

You could also look at when the current PI and 5-yard chuck rules were introduced.

It's undeniable that the game has changed SIGNIFICANTLY even in the last 10 years, let alone the last 40.

acesn8s
05-02-2012, 09:10 AM
You could use 1993, since that was the first year of Plan B free agency. Prior to then, it was much easier for teams to field BOTH a top defense AND top offense.

You could also look at when the current PI and 5-yard chuck rules were introduced.

It's undeniable that the game has changed SIGNIFICANTLY even in the last 10 years, let alone the last 40.4 times since 1993 a team did not have a top 10 defense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 10 offense.

5 times since 1993 a team did not have a top 10 offense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 2 defense.

14 times the SB winning team had the top 2 ranked offense or defense. 9 times the team had the top ranked offense or defense.

Who was the one exception? The '07 Giants.

The numbers did not change that much. With half as many SB to examine the rest of the numbers halved as well.

ChiefsCountry
05-02-2012, 09:12 AM
You need a top QB and a top 10 defense to win a Super Bowl.

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-02-2012, 09:49 AM
Next year is our time!!

ct
05-02-2012, 10:31 AM
We'll just wait a couple years until the Pats are ready to trade off Brady, then we'll give up that 1st round pick.

acesn8s
05-03-2012, 06:51 AM
I think it is safe to say that Daboll is not the OC that will take us to a SB. Throw in Cassel at QB and the playoffs are in jeopardy as well. It won't be until RAC gets fired before we see another OC and Pioli will need to be given an ultimatum before we get another QB (or injury). The fans will definitely need to be very vocal about getting a top notch QB in the draft before they will ever decide to use a 1st round pick on one.

suds79
05-03-2012, 06:54 AM
You need a top QB and a top 10 defense to win a Super Bowl.

Yep. And generally to get that top 10 QB, you have to draft one high.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-J3CV-OuyOLQ/T6GHsWy3TAI/AAAAAAAACYg/ifGdEUDdlyQ/s637/SBwinningQBs.jpg

acesn8s
05-03-2012, 07:21 AM
Yep. And generally to get that top 10 QB, you have to draft one high.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-J3CV-OuyOLQ/T6GHsWy3TAI/AAAAAAAACYg/ifGdEUDdlyQ/s637/SBwinningQBs.jpgIt would be nice if this chart showed the 1st round breakdown (1-10, 11-20, 21+)

suds79
05-03-2012, 07:25 AM
It would be nice if this chart showed the 1st round breakdown (1-10, 11-20, 21+)

True. Don't know if you saw it but at the bottom it pointed out that 33% of SBs won have been by QBs taken 1st overall.

acesn8s
05-04-2012, 05:53 AM
True. Don't know if you saw it but at the bottom it pointed out that 33% of SBs won have been by QBs taken 1st overall.I did not notice that. I wonder why there is so much evidence to support going after the best QB available in the draft yet the Chiefs refuse to commit to winning the ultimate prize.

tredadda
05-04-2012, 07:26 AM
I did not notice that. I wonder why there is so much evidence to support going after the best QB available in the draft yet the Chiefs refuse to commit to winning the ultimate prize.

Asking that is like asking "how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?"

rico
05-04-2012, 08:29 AM
Wasn't Steve Young #1 in the Supplemental Draft?

Chief Roundup
05-04-2012, 01:32 PM
Wasn't Steve Young #1 in the Supplemental Draft?

Yes to the Bucs. He had already played professionally in the USFL and CFL before entering the supplimental draft.

whoman69
05-04-2012, 01:44 PM
Which franchise QB in the last decade were we in a position to draft in the 1st? If you say Aaron Rodger you are 50/50 hindsite because few expected him to succeed at the time, hence his dropping down. Only other QB selected in the 1st after the Chiefs was Flacco.

Chief Roundup
05-04-2012, 02:11 PM
Which franchise QB in the last decade were we in a position to draft in the 1st? If you say Aaron Rodger you are 50/50 hindsite because few expected him to succeed at the time, hence his dropping down. Only other QB selected in the 1st after the Chiefs was Flacco.

Well you have to be willing to trade up. We have been a middle of the road team for a lot of years. You will not normally find a franchise QB in the middle of the first round. If we ever want to be anything more than middle of the road, mediocre, we will have to trade up. Either that or have a horrible 2-14 type season.

whoman69
05-04-2012, 04:36 PM
Well you have to be willing to trade up. We have been a middle of the road team for a lot of years. You will not normally find a franchise QB in the middle of the first round. If we ever want to be anything more than middle of the road, mediocre, we will have to trade up. Either that or have a horrible 2-14 type season.

Detroit wasn't going to trade down when they drafted Stafford. St. Louis wasn't going to trade down when they got Bradford. Additionally trading into the top 5 used to be such a great financial burden that if the pick was trash, so was your team for 3 years. The only other QB we were in position for was Ryan whom many were not sold on anyway, and Sanchez whom we are glad we passed on. There was no way we were going to be able to trade down from 11 to 2 this year and trading up to reach for Tannehill would have been the ultimate in desperation moves.

jspchief
05-04-2012, 05:44 PM
Detroit wasn't going to trade down when they drafted Stafford. St. Louis wasn't going to trade down when they got Bradford. Additionally trading into the top 5 used to be such a great financial burden that if the pick was trash, so was your team for 3 years. The only other QB we were in position for was Ryan whom many were not sold on anyway, and Sanchez whom we are glad we passed on. There was no way we were going to be able to trade down from 11 to 2 this year and trading up to reach for Tannehill would have been the ultimate in desperation moves.

So you want to use hindsight to say who we shouldn't have taken, but don't want anyone to use hindsight to suggest Rodgers?

The point is, KC hasn't tried. Brodie Croyle is the closest they've come in 2 decades.

Guru
05-04-2012, 06:20 PM
As long as the Hunt's own this team?

NEVER

Guru
05-04-2012, 06:22 PM
Next year is our time!!

rinse. repeat

whoman69
05-04-2012, 06:30 PM
So you want to use hindsight to say who we shouldn't have taken, but don't want anyone to use hindsight to suggest Rodgers?

The point is, KC hasn't tried. Brodie Croyle is the closest they've come in 2 decades.

No, I'm saying at the time there wasn't a groundswell for any of the players we missed on and could have realistically had with the exception of Sanchez. No hindsight at all. Nobody was really crying when Ryan went ahead of us. You have Flacco, Sanchez and Freeman that went first after we picked aside from Rodgers. Nobody wanted to trade up to 3rd for us to move down to get Freeman. In those days a top 5 pick was too much of a burden financially.

el borracho
05-04-2012, 10:19 PM
In the last decade, without making any trades, the Chiefs could have selected any of the following:
Marc Bulger
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers
Joe Flacco
Mark Sanchez
Josh Freeman
Andy Dalton
Ryan Mallet

If you are willing to entertain (realistic) hypothetical trades, the Chiefs could have selected the following:
Ben Roethlisberger
Robert Griffin III
Ryan Tannehill

Of course, Pioli is only on the hook for a little over half of those guys. ;)

Tombstone RJ
05-04-2012, 11:16 PM
It would be nice if this chart showed the 1st round breakdown (1-10, 11-20, 21+)

the numbers are right next to the picks in little white letters.

Chief3188
05-05-2012, 12:06 AM
Pioli needs to win ASAP and Romeo is flat old. Neither one of them wants anything to do with a rookie QB.

They would have drafted Luck or Griffin this year if they were in the right place in the draft. Romeo had the worst poker face I have ever seen after his interview with RG3.

Chiefnj2
05-05-2012, 08:00 AM
They would have drafted Luck or Griffin this year if they were in the right place in the draft. Romeo had the worst poker face I have ever seen after his interview with RG3.

Every team was in the right place to get Griffin. It was a matter of making an offer.

htismaqe
05-05-2012, 08:01 AM
In the last decade, without making any trades, the Chiefs could have selected any of the following:
Marc Bulger
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers
Joe Flacco
Mark Sanchez
Josh Freeman
Andy Dalton
Ryan Mallet

If you are willing to entertain (realistic) hypothetical trades, the Chiefs could have selected the following:
Ben Roethlisberger
Robert Griffin III
Ryan Tannehill

Of course, Pioli is only on the hook for a little over half of those guys. ;)

And while it's certainly not FAIR to blame Pioli for the draft records of previous regimes, people have to realize that Pioli is the face of the Kansas City Chiefs and has openly embraced the "legacy" of the Chiefs publicly. He wants to talk about Chiefs "glory" and "tradition".

Well, guess what? That "tradition" includes the team NEVER drafting and developing it's own QB. He willingly accepted the blame, sorry.

htismaqe
05-05-2012, 08:02 AM
They would have drafted Luck or Griffin this year if they were in the right place in the draft. Romeo had the worst poker face I have ever seen after his interview with RG3.

No they wouldn't have. They had their chance and passed.

Chief3188
05-05-2012, 06:36 PM
No they wouldn't have. They had their chance and passed.

Yes if they were drafting 1st or 2nd they would have. They had their chance to give up too much for one unproven and lest not forget they would have had to beat the Redskins offer so all that they gave up we would have to give up more.

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-05-2012, 06:38 PM
Every team was in the right place to get Griffin. It was a matter of making an offer.

Keep ignoring the fact that the Skins held the trump card over every team picking after them.