ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Albert/Joeckel perspective (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=272267)

ChiefsCountry 04-19-2013 02:05 PM

The rookies QBs always get compared to Blackledge. Can we compare Jockel to Jozwiak?
http://www.gamewornuniforms.com/cata..._jozwiak73.JPG

crazycoffey 04-19-2013 02:07 PM

It's about time we had a fresh and new debate...

DeezNutz 04-19-2013 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9604010)
Based on what, exactly?

Multiple, significant draft picks invested in Smith, and enough money committed to Daniel to show that he's definitively the #2.

I think Dorsey might throw a lottery ticket at a late-round QB, but I don't see the organization fishing for more than a #3/developmental guy at this point.

DeezNutz 04-19-2013 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazycoffey (Post 9604038)
It's about time we had a fresh and new debate...

Gladly. Then the organization needs to quit doing the same stupid shit.

RealSNR 04-19-2013 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazycoffey (Post 9604038)
It's about time we had a fresh and new debate...

Okay.

Give us a topic, Linda Richman

Fish 04-19-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9603955)
[...]

Manning the best example, his taint wasn't absolute.

Out of context humor...

bowener 04-19-2013 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9601878)
Mother of Pearl, PLEASE stop with the outdated ****ing value chart.

This. I would venture to guess this chart is beyond outdated now that the rookie wage scale is in place.

Sweet Daddy Hate 04-19-2013 02:46 PM

We have "millions" of fans? Okaaaaay.....
Posted via Mobile Device

DeezNutz 04-19-2013 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowener (Post 9604078)
This. I would venture to guess this chart is beyond outdated now that the rookie wage scale is in place.

Correct. The chart now undervalues the picks.

Sweet Daddy Hate 04-19-2013 02:48 PM

And secondly, if Geno is so "mediocre", then why, pray tell, would ANYONE, our majestic talent-evaluators included, consider one of the late-round scrubs AT ALL? Idiots.
Posted via Mobile Device

HemiEd 04-19-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9603932)
And after 2-14, 4-12, 2-14 and 7-9 seasons, the Chiefs were a piece of shit.

Yep they were, with 6 Pro Bowlers on a 2 and 14 team.

So hey, let's do the exact same thing with the most important position on the team, and maybe it will get us where we want to go this time!

Dane, there is no defending this.

You take the QB when you have the high draft pick, the best one you can get.

Now when they get to your "respectible" position next year, they will be drafting 15-25 and guess what the excuse will be then?

The same ****ing one we heard for 27 years, they were drafting too late to get one! Rinse and ****ing repeat, rinse and ****ing repeat!

DaneMcCloud 04-19-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Dick Willie (Post 9604163)
And secondly, if Geno is so "mediocre", then why, pray tell, would ANYONE, our majestic talent-evaluators included, consider one of the late-round scrubs AT ALL? Idiots.
Posted via Mobile Device

:facepalm:

KC native 04-19-2013 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 9603991)
They said they want to build now and the future.

Joeckel is good now and for another 10+ years. What's not to get about that?

The fact that a Joeckel type player can be had in the middle of the 1st round every god damn year.

DaneMcCloud 04-19-2013 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 9604167)
You take the QB when you have the high draft pick, the best one you can get.

Since 1990, fourteen QB's have been taken #1 overall. Two have won Super Bowls (Manning, Manning).

That's 14%.

Do you like those odds? Or is there a Manning in this draft that's yet to be identified?

There are many ways to win a Super Bowl. While I would like the Chiefs to draft and develop a QB (something I believe they will do in this regime), it's not required to draft a QB at 1.1 to win a Super Bowl.

OnTheWarpath15 04-19-2013 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9604411)
Since 1990, fourteen QB's have been taken #1 overall. Two have won Super Bowls (Manning, Manning).

That's 14%.

Do you like those odds? Or is there a Manning in this draft that's yet to be identified?

There are many ways to win a Super Bowl. While I would like the Chiefs to draft and develop a QB (something I believe they will do in this regime), it's not required to draft a QB at 1.1 to win a Super Bowl.


Since 2004, when the rules changed dramatically to give the offense an advantage, 7 of 9 Super Bowl winning QB's were drafted in the 1st round.

The 8th was Tom Brady, and the 9th was Drew Brees - who was taken withing the first 32 picks.

All seven were drafted and developed by the teams they won with.

It's not a coincidence, but go ahead, continue to push all-in with 8-4 offsuit.

Better yet, let's create a hole and use that 1.1 your so adamant about wasting on a potential franchise QB to fill the hole - on the OL - which is about the least important group when it comes to winning championships.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.