I think we should just play it safe and use our picks to upgrade our weak positions and build depth.

Trading picks for an unproven QB is stupid. You should only use picks to trade for proven veterans.

It has worked great in the past, so why wouldn't it work again?

the thig is is that the rams wouldnt even want to go for that. why pay dbowe when they can draft blackman.
there is no way we get rg3. hes awesome. Id love to see him in a chiefs jersey but there is no way hes playing for us next year. 3 other teams have much more to offer the rams then us.

Because they would know exactly what they have in Bowe, who is a front-line WR, despite what some on CP try to suggest.

You are discounting who is drafting, I would trade our whole 2009 draft for Matthew Stafford. The big draft day busts have been primarily RB's. That is foolish, someone you think is a franchise QB is worth considering particularly if you have a young team that you can patch holes through free agency. You aren't going to get a franchise QB in free agency.

But they did not trade the entire draft,think.

It doesn't hurt to ask, throw the whole draft at them. If they don't bite, nothing lost. If they do, you immediately energize your fan base and hopefully your team. If we had the history of solid mid round drafting successes recently it would different, but for the most part we are hit or miss on rounds 1, 2, and 3 as it is...even if RGIII flops, it doesn't set us much further back than we already are. I don't think it would be enough to give up our whole draft, just that it shouldn't be discounted as an option to offer.

Peyton is better and cheaper!

That's only because the neck is extra.

last year:

Tyson Jackson > BJ Raji

Doesn't excuse him from missing on guys like Orakpo, though.

I understand what Kenpom says, and I don't care. Relative value and worth, it's not even close. Raji + Houston would be two very fine additions.

If the Chiefs don't land RG3 or Peyton Manning, I will have a lot more time on my hands the next 4-5 years.

RG3 is just flat out exciting. Even if we didn't win a Super Bowl with him in the next five years, it sure would be fun to watch him play and develop.

I'm simply at the point where I would like SOMETHING exciting to happen with this franchise.

i would gladly give up our 2009 draft entirely.

Well, if we are gonna do this.

How about Orakpo and Mallett (who went 4 picks later, or Demarco Murray who went at the pick after Houston)

Houston was a great pick, two years later.

Doesnt mean that Raji is better than Jackson RIGHT NOW.

He isn't and every non biased advanced stats site grades Jackson higher.

It is entirely possible that Jackson redeems Pioli for that pick at 3 if he continues to improve.

I don't have a problem trading a draft away. But we are essentially trading two drafts away. That's just reckless. Again, if you whiff on a first round QB, that's fine. If you whiff on a first round QB you traded 2 rounds away for, you essentially set your team back 5-6 years.

Being exciting has little to do with this... Michael Vick has been pimped as exciting for ten years and he is never going to win anything.

Your success as a QB in the NFL who gives your team a shot at winning the super bowl depends on your ability to be a pocket passer and not much else.

You set your team back only if you are too stupid to adjust your personel strategies to the decisions you make.

I wanted Michael Vick coming out of Leavenworth. More fun than watching Cassel.

BINGO !!!:thumb:

Amen Fat man:thumb:

I'm talking about if RGIII is anything less than a franchise QB.

When you make that kind of a bold trade, you HAVE to start him for 3-4 years. You have no choice. More importantly, you are giving away two drafts. Which means that the guys you formerly had for cheap like Albert, Moeaki, Houston, etc.... those guys are going to start to get paid and you wont' be able to afford all of them.

We'd have a 2-3 year window. After that, we better hope RGIII is Peyton Manning good (even Matt Ryan good wont' be good enough to carry a team built purely through free agency).

And this franchise has had a lot of excitement. Hasn't it? I don't know if anybody can argue that. We've seen this franchise field excellent defenses during the DT years. We've seen this franchise field great offenses during the Vermeil era. Can we call that excitement? I know I can. Don't get me wrong, there has been a lot of sh*tiness along the way as well ala Herm era. The Chiefs have given the fans a mix of a little bit of everything except a bowl.

What we've really seen are a lot of one dimensional teams. It either the team is good on offense or defense and hardly ever both. I want to see an actual team for once that can win it all. The excitement stage hasn't reached to the pinnacle as of yet till they can actually build a well balanced team for once.

Im with superbowl or nothing. I would like excitement to reach its ultimate peak and not just enough to lead to a heartbreak. We've experienced to many of those. It'd be nice to see a change. Never lose out on the big picture man because at the end of the day the big picture is the reason you, I and others watch this game.

Thats all I gotta say.

The Giants traded 2 1st round picks(Philip Rivers, '05 pick), a third rounder, and a 5th rounder. HOW ON EARTH IS THAT AN ENTIRE DRAFT?! Or even TWO for that matter?

So if you trade our first this year, a tagged Carr(who we're losing anyway), and a2nd or 3rd and a 4th or 5th. Then, receive one or two compensatory picks(from Orton and Shaun Smith), how in the hell is that TWO FULL DRAFTS?

Hell, trade our first, Carr, a 3rd and 5th this year and a 3rd next year and we still make out.

RG3, is worth it. Why don't you ask the Giants if Manning wasn't worth the risk.

Two problems with this post.

1. Fewer QB hungry teams that year than this year

2. NYG traded essentially the #4 pick for the #1 pick. Not #11 for #2.

I don't think that is enough to get him.

You're serious? You really think a trade up from #11 to #2 is going to be even CLOSE to the compensation required to go up from #4 to #1? Especially given the enormous dropoff in talent when the Rams move that far?

And can we please stop with all the ridiculous conjecture that teams with great picks are going to want to trade for a very expensive CB?

hmmmmmmm exciting over winning thats stupid

I agree with you and this is what I don't get. Some want a championship, but won't do what it takes to do it. Any thought of trading up gets shot down because it might be too expensive because we might "fail". Granted the way we have been doing it for 40+ years is safe, but has netted us 3 playoff wins. The Giants didn't think the cost for Eli was too high even though he might "fail". Funny enough they won more playoff games THIS YEAR than we have in over 40.

We need to do whatever it takes to trade up. WTF do we have to lose? We have 3 playoff wins in 40+ years. The Giants have more playoff wins this year than we have in 40+. They were not afraid to do what it took to get Eli even though he might bust.

We will have to trade a lot more than the Giants had to trade.

I don't think anybody has a problem offering the trade comp the Chargers sent to the Giants.

You would have to be INSANE to think that that would be even close to what the Rams want for this pick.

There is absolutely a line where the trade comp is too much. Risking one full draft, I don't have a problem with that. Risking two, which is what we will likely have to do, very big problem with that.

Your right . I wish the clueless kids around the world who think vick and qbs like him are all that. Would see that.

What do we have to lose? 5-6 years.

I've stated before... if you give up 2 years of drafts, in 2-3 years, you're going to start losing a lot of your in-house talent, you'll have no young players to replace them, and your cap becomes too stretched to sign marquee free agents from the outside. If we give up 2 years of drafts, by 2015, RGIII's supporting cast is going to look significantly worse.

So the question is, do people feel comfortable that RGIII can be Peyton Manning? That he can be a QB that can carry a team on his back? Or will we use common sense and say that his upside is much more likely to be like Matt Ryan -- a very good QB who won't make the Super Bowl unless he gets the help of a great supporting cast?

Again, the Giants have more playoff wins this year than we have in 40 and some still want to play it safe? I just don't get it.

Or they could fill their gaping CB hole with a 1st, 2nd round CB who winds up busting.

Seriously, Carr is a known, he is young, he is good and he has yet to reach his ceiling.

Also, we can always give up higher picks than the 3rd, 5th. A 2nd and 5th next year and our 3rd and 5th this year...

Vick also was a dumb as a box of rocks coming out. He also had no accuracy. The only similarities between him and RGIII are they are both fast and black QBs.

I agree that two drafts is too much. But it won't take two whole drafts to trade up.

Again, you are absolutely crazy if you actually think we are going to win this trade without giving up at least or first 3 picks in 2012 and 2013. At least.

And no, teams (especially like the Rams) are not interested in signing a guy like Brandon Carr. They are teams building for the future much moreso than they are today. Why would they sign a guy for $10+ million when they can use that pick instead to draft a CB like Claiborne for a few mill? It's ridiculous to suggest that the Rams are so desperate to win now that they would trade away a blue chip pick for a guy who's going to break their bank.

3 playoff wins in 40 years and yet you still worry about 5-6 years? I still think you are pulling a worst case scenario to justify your position. Lets put it this way, we played it safe the last 5-6 years and have what to show for it?

even if the Rams cut that overrated o-lineman they are in no position to be overspending on a 10 mil contract on Brandon Carr

that hurts them, a rebuilding team, more than it helps. The Rams want the future they don't want high priced present day talent.

Brandon Carr has enormous value to win now/media market teams. Not a team like the Rams

If Carr were 32 I would agree, but he is still young and ascending. He would be a great pickup for them. He is a proven commodity, Claiborne is not. Did you see how awful their secondary was last year? They could definitely use him him to help stabilize that secondary.

Clearly you don't get it. WE CAN'T GET RGIII FOR WHAT THE GIANTS GAVE FOR ELI. Not even close.

Actually I do get it. The point is the Giants took a chance and gave up what it took to get Eli (regardless of what it would take to get RGIII this year) and were richly rewarded for it. We play it safe even though 40 years of history says that way won't work for us.

I have maintained my position that you build your team as if they have to support Matt Ryan, but you aggressively pursue QBs that you hope will become Peyton Manning. Taking a risk on a franchise QB is one thing. Taking a gamble that your QB will become Peyton Manning is another.

I am a big supporter of trading aggressively for RGIII. But if it means sacrificing 2+ years of marquee draft picks, then forget about it. It's stupid to take that enormous risk because we have to overcompensate in a really horrendous QB draft class. I'd rather wait until 2013. There will be deeper QBs and regardless of our draft position, it will be significantly to trade our way into a QB that has true first round value.

So you're saying our first this year, next year, and Carr would do it? I'd even sweeten that deal with a 3rd somewhere.

No, what part about "the Rams don't have the cap, nor the urgency to win now to pay that much for Carr" do you not understand?

? What? What does taking RG3 and trading for him have to do with thinking he will become Peyton Manning? He doesn't need to be Peyton Manning. Peyton never played on a team as good as the team KC has right now...

RG3 has a lot going for him. Brains like crazy, a better deep ball than Manning, and his athletic ability is just icing.

Yes. So you give him a 2-3 year window to win now, which is crazy to expect out of a rookie. If you have ineffective drafts two years in a row, those young guys you have on your roster for cheap, suddenly either get overpaid or you let them loose. That means either you overly stretch your cap, or you have to let some good players go and make your team worse (and you'll have no one to replace them with).

It's not rocket science. We all know that great teams build around a franchise QB, but they also build around the draft.

What makes you think that team can't be competative with good db's and an OL to keep Bradford upright? Not to mention what they get from their draft and the bounty they reap from their pick.

If you really want to cite their cap situation, then you are uninformed. They are currently under the cap, and have highly paid guys who can go, a few contracts that can and should be extended to change their current cap hit. Like 4-5 of those off the top of my head. On top of that, they don't have any FA's who can't be had back reasonably.

All of these things due to change suddenly, plus new leadership and they can't compete at all? They have an opportunity to drastically change for the better.

Tell me... when was the last time a team traded away a top 5 pick for a 2nd contract free agent?

(Jeopardy theme song)

Tell me that it matters.

there is absolutely no way we will end up with rg3. 3 teams can all outbid us. the best chance u have of seeing him play is when we play the browns next year

**** Tannehill he has bust written all over him

yeah hes such a waste of time. Great qb's dont play one year of college quarterback. Draft someone later. tannehill is NOT worth the 11th pick. jesus

It matters because teams are smart enough to know that it's better to go with a young, elite, blue chip prospect, especially now at a far cheaper price, than to go with a second contract veteran.

The idea that you build through the draft and not free agency is a common sense principle that everybody knows, yet we are so firmly convinced that St. Louis would do the exact opposite... even with a blue chip pick.

I'd rather wait until 2013. If you want a QB to test out, bring in Clausen--he's better than anyone you're going to find after Tannehill (who I think is a decent pick, but hell no if it's going to be at #11).

I think 2013 will end up being not a better class, but it's going to have a ton more second-tier first round talent (in my opinion, Tannehill is second round talent being forced into a #1 pick by desperate teams).

They have a lot of young core players on the roster they've drafted. Taking on ONE second contract player would be the worst thing in the world...you're right. The additional picks and their own picks in this draft are obviously not enough to help build that team. They need that ONE more. They need it. They do.

You act as though they are in KC's situation when KC started rebuilding to the present. There is one HUGE difference between us and them. They believe they have the single most important piece to the puzzle on their roster already. We don't, and won't anytime soon unless Stanzi is it.

Your thinking is flawed. You don't want KC to jump up to get a QB b/c it could set us back. News flash. All the talent on this roster will be wasted if KC doesn't get a legit QB.

Likewise, every year St. Louis isn't trying to win, is wasting the years of their franchise QB. So they build this team for "the future", how big is their window if you throw away the next 3+ yrs?

Not every team is as lucky as Indianapolis, they don't all luck into back to back legit franchise QB's.

you can for a franchise QB, something we've never had.

Orton was a mole.

You create your own luck. To think Indy could have brought in either Garrard or Orton but did not is quite telling.

I see you already think we are going to be 2-14.:(

I wish Pioli had Dimitroff's balls...he'd do it.

I see RGIII being a very successful NFL QB and one that can win a SB so IMO the price isn't too high.

You can make the argument we're one franchise QB away from going deep in the playoffs or even contending for a Super Bowl so why not take that chance? I would be just fine if we went for it and it didn't work out as opposed to not even trying.

Len Dawson wasn't a franchise QB? Three AFL Championships, two SBs, one SB win. NFL Hall of Fame. Not a franchise QB? Really?

Idiot the chargers wanted eli .But baby ass eli said I won`t play in SD so sd traded players with the giants who already drafted rivers.So if was not for eli crying he would be a charger.So wake up.And the playing it safe crap that is clearly giving you a hardon that was all Lamar hunt. That prick cared more about his other bussinesses than the chiefs.SO whats he do he hires the ultamate playing it safe guy in Carl peterson. So you need to go smoke some crack or whatever you do and calm the **** down and see how things play out.Now go night night.LMAO

Yes. We've had 1. You win. LMAO

Well really dawson was just a back up in pitsburgh. Hank wanted him to come run the system and he did very well yes. However dawson yet good was very average. Yes we won the sb but the d at that time was lights out. Dawson was just a system qb. See a trend? KC has had a long history of going and getting other teams backups and making them starters.

1987

The last time a first round pick quarterback started for this team.

That can't be right, can it?

Three AFL championships, two SBs (one win). Starter for more than ten years. That is the very definition of franchise QB.

Well really Favre was just a backup in Atlanta.

We will draft an o-lineman in my head after trading down

Favre would have drank himself out of the league in Atlanta.

He was 4th round.
The entire list is short and horrific
http://pfref.com/tiny/O1Dpx

Year Rnd Pick Player Pos Tm From To AP1 PB St CarAV G Cmp Att Yds TD Int Att Yds TD College/Univ
1964 1 2 Pete Beathard QB KAN 1964 1973 0 0 3 29 110 575 1282 8176 43 84 131 680 11 USC
1979 1 23 Steve Fuller QB KAN 1979 1986 0 0 2 29 90 605 1066 7156 28 41 186 908 11 Clemson
1983 1 7 Todd Blackledge QB KAN 1983 1989 0 0 0 12 46 424 881 5286 29 38 81 325 2 Penn St.
1968 2 48 Mike Livingston QB KAN 1968 1979 0 1 5 43 91 912 1751 11295 56 83 156 682 7 SMU
1989 2 32 Mike Elkins QB KAN 1989 1989 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 0 1 Wake Forest
1992 2 40 Matt Blundin QB KAN 1993 1997 0 0 0 0 3 2 9 15 0 2 Virginia
1962 3 19 Eddie Wilson QB DTX 1962 1965 0 0 1 6 56 90 186 1251 5 6 23 59 1 Arizona
1974 3 66 David Jaynes QB KAN 1974 1974 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Kansas
2006 3 85 Brodie Croyle QB KAN 2006 2010 0 0 0 2 18 181 319 1669 8 9 10 15 0 Alabama
1978 4 104 Pete Woods QB KAN 0 0 0 Missouri
1995 4 134 Steve Stenstrom QB KAN 1996 1999 0 0 0 6 17 177 314 1895 4 12 22 100 2 Stanford
1997 4 110 Pat Barnes QB KAN 1999 1999 0 0 0 0 1 California
2011 5 135 Ricky Stanzi QB KAN 2011 2011 0 0 0 Iowa
1972 7 179 Dean Carlson QB KAN 1974 1974 0 0 0 0 1 7 15 116 0 1 2 17 0 Iowa St.
1987 7 186 Doug Hudson QB KAN 1987 1987 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Nicholls St.
1994 7 199 Steve Matthews QB KAN 1997 1998 0 0 0 1 3 28 43 299 0 0 1 10 0 Memphis
2005 7 229 James Kilian QB KAN 0 0 0 Tulsa
1965 8 61 Danny Thomas QB KAN 0 0 0 SMU
1977 10 261 Mark Vitali QB KAN 0 0 0 Purdue
1988 11 282 Danny McManus QB KAN 0 0 0 Florida St.
1981 12 319 Bob Gagliano QB KAN 1982 1992 0 0 0 13 32 249 486 3431 17 27 93 352 4 Utah St.
1971 13 328 Chuck Hixson QB KAN 0 0 0 SMU
1976 13 361 Joe Bruner QB KAN 0 0 0 La-Monroe
1964 16 122 Roger Staubach HOF QB KAN 1969 1979 0 6 8 104 131 1685 2958 22700 153 109 410 2264 20 Navy
1963 17 136 Billy Moore QB KAN 0 0 0 Arkansas
1961 21 166 Dick Thornton QB DTX 0 0 0 Northwestern
1962 24 187 Pat Trammell QB DTX 0 0 0 Alabama
1961 25 198 Ray Ramsey QB DTX 0 0 0 Adams St.
1962 26 203 Walt Rappold QB DTX 0 0 0 Duke
1961 27 214 Bob Schloredt QB DTX 0 0 0 Washington

So the Chiefs did draft a franchise quarterback once: Roger Staubach.

If you do GB's list from 1939 to present there are 2 Bart Starr and Rogers.
Denver would be 1. So you aren't lighting it up either.

SF had 3 Earl Morrall, John Brodie and Montana.
It doesn't happen often they are rare.
If your GB it's 2.
If SF 3.
It just seems like more from them but alot of qb's make it with their 2nd go round like farve and young

He wasn't drafted by KC.
But I would bet there are a lot of teams whose best QB was not drafted by them originally.

Not just start, last time a quarterback who was drafted in the first round by any team was on the roster.
Posted via Mobile Device

I would say that is false.
Posted via Mobile Device

We have zero chance at Barkley next year. If either bray or Murray declare next year, we have a great shot at trading up to get one of those guys or Wilson. People have to realize that it's not hard to trade from 25 to the top 10. It's Very very tough to trade from outside the top 10 into the top 3.

Again, if you're trade comp is too high, you are betting the farm that rgIII is the answer. Again, if we have to sacrifice two drafts... People are really undermining how much that hurts us. I think rgIII is a good qb, but I also think he is a qb who will need a lot of help to win a super bowl.

Exactly, if the Chiefs miss they are looking at not winning a playoff game in 20 years. Something like that would never happen barring a team going all out for a franchise QB.

Look, I know the chiefs need a qb. But trading into an ultra competitive pick in a very shallow qb class is bot the way to do it. People keep saying there isn't a price. There absolutely is. If the rams are willing to take the ticky tack trade bait proposed in this thread then it's a great trade. But the reality is, the chiefs will have to trade not just the moon, but the sun the moon and the stars to get rgIII.

Wait one year. Again, regardless of our record next year, there's a very good chance we can trade up to get a good qb for significantly less.