I'm not a Reiff fan. I think he's a guard at the next level. I could see them taking him though.

He's closer to Sanchez than the others as Rogers, Flacco and Newton were all playing QB, just transferred. Brady was a fifth year senior in a system that he was QB for the entire time.

He's supposedly a smart guy and athletic. But he's raw as sushi. All those guys you mentioned were more polished quarterbacks than Tannehill.

I'm not saying he can't become one, but it's going to take time and if the Chiefs sign him, I don't see him providing anything at this stage that they already have in Stanzi (and most likely substantially less at this point). Quinn is a big, physical prototype as well. I'd love to see what he's actually capable of now that he isn't getting thrown under the bus by Mangini or part of the Tebow circus in Denver. Here was a legit first round quarterback with all the tools, a great work ethic, experience in a pro system, and I don't think he's ever really been given a chance.

Because there isn't the "prototypes" available in this draft other than Tannehill.

If Wilson or Moore were three inches taller...If Weeden was five years younger...those three are superb quarterbacks - heady, students of the game that have produced extremely well, but they aren't "prototype" like Tannehill purportedly is. It's why guys like Boller and Russell go in the first round - because of the potential, because they can throw a ball 80 yards. Teams feel that a lot of the other stuff can be coached up or matured into. Sometimes it can, like Brett Favre. Sometimes it can't, like Ryan Leaf.

Cousins is suffering from the Brady syndrome - successful, team leader, throws a decent ball and steps up in game situations, but his measurables and looks are just meh.

Tannehill looks the part. He's the one apparently with the potential at this point.

I just haven't seen enough of it from him to justify it for the Chiefs to spend a near top ten draft pick on him. Call me conservative, but I think he's a long term project that may or may not get it. I'll take a guy like Moore in the later rounds based on his uncanny ability to take a team and elevate it and win versus a guy that's been relatively mediocre to this point but has "potential."

[QUOTE]Saying Mark Barron was only a third rounder prior to this year isnt exactly telling it how it is, either.

His stock went up, sure....but he was always thought of as a high second rounder prior to this last year where he played a lot more in coverage and faired quite well, showing that he is a true dual threat safety and those are worth their weight in gold in todays NFL.[QUOTE]

I think their situations are similar. Barron is a very athletic guy who hasn't put up huge numbers in the Alabama defense, but is going to get elevated based on his "potential" due to his size and athletic ability. Right now, he is not a better cover than Lewis is and he really hasn't shown that in his game to this point, especially considering that they had guys like Kirkpatrick in coverage and the amazing pressure up front.

Add to that the injury history (and a torn pec and double hernia surgeries are a concern), I don't think he's anywhere close to being a guy who you look at with the #11 pick, especially when you've got two really solid, young safeties in Berry and Lewis.

Just my take.

This place hops along pretty well on its own. Direckshun is a big part of it, but so are tons of other posters. In years past it wasn't like Hamas and Mecca were posting draft threads left and right. They were certainly contributing, but it's not like Direckshun is filling the draft thread vacuum that formed when they both left.

See man, even though I disagree with a lot of what you posted...I don't want to stab my eyes out after reading it like I do when you talked about replacing Albert with Okung (over Eric Berry, FFS) or earlier when you talked about taking Reiff or Martin at 11.

A few things.

Mark Barron didn't put up big numbers because that front seven was NFL good last year. Just watching the games and what he did should make it clear as day that the kid will easily translate to the NFL game. His size/temperment/instincts are very very attractive to our defense and what it could mean to not only the starting safeties, but sub packages along with giving us the ability to move Berry to FS where he would be able to use his speed in coverage to do a lot more for us than Lewis can while keeping away from as much contact while his knee solidifies.

Barron improves more than just that, too. He is an enforcer that can fly and adds to the defenses "team speed".

I just obvious think a lot more of him than most guys here.

If we trade down, I can DEFINETLY see us targeting him.

You seem to want to dance around saying that Tannehill has the potential to be a franchise quarterback that can be a pocket passer as well as a guy that extends the play and uses his mobility to help guys get open. Those types of guys are what the NFL is
moving towards.

If he busts, we could absorb that without hurting the team at this point.

If he develops and reaches his potential, we are a superbowl team in two or three years with the talent we are stockpiling.

Even if we don't take Reiff or Martin.

I always kinda had a sneaking suspicion that Sac and Mecca were the same person, just posting from two different perspectives.

Drafturbator and true fan.

Both give good detail on prospects, but Mecca would go overboard on "playmakers" like when he almost sucked off CJ Spiller where Sac does the same thing on the opposite spectrum with guys like Okung.

Both bring a lot to the board, just in different ways.

I'm not sure exactly what side I truly belong to, but it was/is fun to debate with them/him.

I actually miss Mecca.

I liked him.

But when the hell will FAX come back? Seriously. He can't leave forever. He's one of my top 3 favorite posters.

From what I understand, FAX has always taken these breaks from cp.

It's probably a healthy thing to do from time to time.

Mecca just had a complex that didn't allow him to ever acknowledge he was wrong and once he did and the team actually won games, he left.

It's a shame, he was a good poster, but he just couldn't take having all his knowledge blow up in his face so often.

You're the one who needs to jump off a building for that suggestion. We all know you are a massive Iowa homer, but how many NFL teams do you know that builds their rosters around back up QBs? McNutt in the 2nd or 3rd? Are you his brother? :thumb:

BINGO !!:thumb:

However, I like Stephen Hill over Wright. He will be the next Mike Wallace/Victor Cruz. Yes I now they are 2 different type of receivers and I don't care if there is only 28 rec from this last season. When you just watch his combine speed, combine routes and especially his combine venus fly trap hands this guy has HUGE upside and WILL STRETCH THE FIELD !!

Yeah I know I referred to the 'combine' and not actual 'game play' but this guy is going to be very good.

I think if Barron's on the board, you gotta think he's in the running to be a Chief if we end up trading down to the late teens.

One of Barron's injuries was a double hernia, which is not a recurring thing. Barron's arrest was such a minor charge it's hard to get worked up about.

Instead, Barron brings toughness, versatility, speed, power, brains, and leadership -- he was a team captain for Bama, for chrissakes.

Is there room for 2 Ed Reeds in our 2ndary? I like the thought of that!

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

When the Chiefs used to have two terrific safeties, Cherry and Burress, the whole defense played at a higher level. Great safeties are a wonderful thing and it's often an undervalued position.

This is what's going to happen to GoatCheese. The dude is just a constant storm of negativity and wack perception lately.

He will never leave. His position will change to whatever post whore side brings him the most attention.

Not that I'm complaining or give a shit.

I don't like the Barron pick because I don't like drafting defensive players in the first round that aren't very rare athletes.(I think Romeo agrees here, Pioli maybe not as much.)

Guys with Barrons size/speed/strength and hit ability are more common than guys with Poe's size that can move like him, guys that can play and have Brockers size/length, and guys that can burst like Melvin Ingram at 270-280... As a late first or early second the pick becomes more tolerable

Mayock just said Kuechly is the best coverage ILN he's seen come out of college.

thats kinda cool

Agreed. Dumb dumbassery

Chapman is the NT you want in our D. Poe got a lot a tackles at Memphis, Chapman anchored the best defense in the land.

Barron and Chapman completes our top 5 D.

theres really no way of knowing that. its possible but it could be other variables besides that, thats led to bamas success. do you ahve evidence for those 2 being the driving force to their D

There are players that made shit happen on that Bama defense, and others that coasted from it.

It's not hard to figure out.

Chapman, Barron, and Hightower made shit happen.

Menzie and Upshaw clearly benefited from that.

Like Peppers vs Sims

Actually, I agree with sac on this one.

If Albert or Winston are lost to injury, he's right, we have no one behind them to take over.

If sac's argument is that Reiff makes more sense than DeCastro or Kuechly, and that's how I understand it, then I, as I said, I agree with him on that.

Now I understand, also, that sac has had a hard on for replacing Albert for a long time, but if you take the argument he's making at face value without allowing his past dumbassery coloring your opinion, he does make a valid point.

I'd much rather look for tackle depth later, but were the Chiefs to draft Reif or Martin, that would not piss me off like taking Kuechly or DeCastro would.

DeCastro would be talented enough to start over Asamoah and Lilja. Reiff would be a backup. You'd rather use the #11 pick on a backup rather than a starter, even one at guard? That's messed up.

DeCastro (Like Matthews) can play any position on the o-line except Left Tackle.

And Reiff could play any position on the O-Line except center.

If you draft him, you get a new starter at guard that all the dumbasses are clamoring for, but a guy that can step outside to LT if the need arises.

And yes, a good backup LT is more valuable than a starter at guard.

I'll bet everything I have McNutt doesn't make it out of the third round.

In fact, I bet there is a better chance he goes in the second round than the bottom half of the third round.

My thoughts on McNutt have very little to do with Stanzi.

The kid is gonna be a very dependable clutch player that moves the chains and puts points on the board.

I made it very clear that letting Bowe walk would be a huge mistake, but if we are gonna make that mistake we better at least fill the spot with a good prospect.

I've been talking up MM for three years on here.

Considering who their QBs are, no. Adding another weapon to the arsenal that Cassel can't use...

He's not near the player DeCastro projects to be.

If we have no other options than Reiff, Decastro or Kuechly...I totally agree with you.

That's not the case, though.

Give me Barron and a mid round center.

I'm fully aware of their projections, but I would not ever consider using a top 15 pick on a dedicated guard.

I don't care how you present the argument, and DJ's left nut does the best job at presenting an argument, the fact is, and always will be, that guard is not a difference making position, and you don't use premium picks on that.

It's been reported that Reiff is expected to slip now. Using what Milkman said we'd be better off trading down and getting Cordy Glenn.

It's a safe pick do you think it sets the team back 5 years down the road?

I'm pretty sure Reiff started every line position at Iowa except center.

This front office LOVES versatility and drafts it at a premium.

Dexter and Arenas are perfect examples of that.

Hell, we'd be better off trading down, regardless.

I'm for it unless Ingram or Tannehill are sitting there at 11.

I would always use a premium pick on a player at a difference making position over "safe" picks.

And in today's NFL, there isn't a single pick that will set you back 5 years.

As much as I like what Ingram offers to this D, I would still be in favor of trading down.

We agree on Tannehill.

I'm such an Iowa homer that I called Bulaga falling to the 20s and have said over and over that Reiff will probably slip to a similar spot.

WAYYYY before ANYONE else did in the media.

I saw on Twitter the Jags want to trade out and are hoping we'd trade up to get Tannehill. What would that cost us? A 3rd?

That Mercilus kid should be in the conversation, as should Barron.

I'd come at them like this.

We will give you the 11 pick and a third...and a conditional pick as follows: if Tannehill wins a playoff game for us during his rookie deal, we will send you another third rounder in the ensuing draft...if he wins two playoff games it goes up to a second...superbowl, a first.

That would be a GREAT deal for both sides.

I wouldn't mind trading up for Tannehill. Don't really like it, but wouldn't mind.


I'm starting to extremely hope it plays out something like this.


The Chiefs can trade back, getting an extra 3. Take Barron.

Secondary is good. Scary good and young save for corner, but I will get to that.

Use your that third and some other picks to trade back up into the first and take Konz.

Offensive line is set. Or sit in the second and take Janoris Jenkins when he falls, which he will.

Take Chapman as soon as you have to to make sure you get him.


Barron
Konz
Chapman


Thats a winner draft right there.

Go look at my mock draft, buddy.

IMO it's the best one out there for us...with the exception of moving up for Tannehill.

Also, don't sleep on Jalil Brown.

I think he can be about as good as Carr was in a year or two.

It's certainly an outside the box way of thinking and I like it. How long would Tannehill's rookie contract be? 5 years? I don't think he'll be ready for about 3 years though.

I don't really want them to play him next year, but I think the best way to learn is to be thrown into the fire.


I know the Rodgers situation worked out. But look how many qbs are behind other guys that never turn out.


Supposedly, Tannehill has greatly improved his mechanics this offseason.


IMO the best way to learn the speed of the NFL, is to play in the NFL. Now I don't want to ruin him like the Jags possibly might have with Gabbert, but I think with our talent he could easily lean on the run and get his feet wet early.

Look at how fast his learning curve has been so far.

5 years with a heavily inflated 6th year team option iirc.

I'd only sit him for one year...even if Cassel is terrible, I still go with Stanzi and the only way Stanzi is the starter in 2013 is if he plays so well you can't sit him or someone coughs up a premium pick (first or second round) for him.

Otherwise, Cassel is cut at years end and Tannehill is the cemented starter the next 2 1/2 years...barring injury.

Probably right Boss, but I just look at what Andy Dalton did last year.



I think Tannehill is better than Dalton. Probably needs a little while to get there mentally but physically yeah.

Tannehill could be a game manager for a year, I don't care.

I think Dalton was more NFL ready than Tannehill is.

I also think Dalton will be a good QB for years, but will never be among the top tier QBs.

I think that Tannehill has a much higher ceiling (as well as a much lower floor), but I also believe that there are some QBs that absolutely can be ruined by starting them too soon, and Tannehill is likely one of those (as I believe Mark Sanche was, but that's another discussion).

I've said it many times through the years.

If you believe that a QB has the tools to be a franchise QB, even if you believe he is a project, you take him high.

They surely can be ruined. Gabbert, IMO, will likely never be what he could have been.


That said, I just think the best way to learn is for the bullets to start flying.

Even if we sit him for a year, it's gonna take another full year for him to get his feet under him.


However, as I've been thru the last 24 years of my life with the way the Chiefs have been with a qb, i'll gladly wait another year for one to sit on the bench and learn the way to play.

The thing Dalton had going for him was that he was the starter from day one of camp and got all the first team snaps after being a starter at tcu for almost twice as long as Tannehill.

Tannehill would probably get "red shirted" for us so Pioli can try to build some tradable value for Cassel and wouldn't get many (if any at all) first team snaps.

I'd also like to say that if a quarterback can be "ruined" by starting him too early, how do you properly judge his ability to fight through adversity and grow as a leader? That's one of the most important aspects for a quarterback you feel you can win a superbowl with because he WILL face heavy adversity the deeper he goes in the playoffs.

If I'm Pioli, I see Tannehill as the perfect fit.

He desperately wants to boost his ego and how better to do that than to take Tannehill with intensions of sitting him at least one full year and maybe two years while Pioli can get to see what Cassel does to build his trade value while developing the mental part of Tannehills game so he is mentally prepared for things teams will try to do to him in games.

On top of that, he has a dark horse with a good resume in Stanzi.

That's three ways Pioli can boost his personal ego.

I think it has to be a case by case basis, but the most obvious reason that some QBs can be ruined is that those would likely be the ones with the lower floors.

You start them too early, and they revert to old, bad habits, and never are able to get through that.

Then thats a guy that doesn't have the mental toughness to overcome adversity.

For me, I prefer the "throw them into the fire" approach.

I want to see how my boy reacts after he gets hit in the mouth.

Does he back off and play timid after an early pick? Or is he a fighter that will come out throwing darts after walking up and down the sideline telling his teammates he owes them one? (this is something Stanzi did a few times that really made me a fan. Especially his first year playing Indiana)

Is his head in it after he gets rattled a few times...meaning, does he still process as much information during the plays after getting hit, or does he get lazy and stare guys down.

Then, after his first year starting, does he "own the team" and does he appear to "step it up" and take the next step and how do his teammates respond to the change?

There are a million positives to "throwing the kid in the fire"

Actually, Tannehill may be better off starting here than Luck with the Colts in the first year just due to the fact that the Chiefs have a much better supporting cast in place than the Colts do.

I disagree.

A kid that is a project because he has to learn some new mechanics isn't going to play with the confidence of a kid that has more advanced mechanics.

This is not a case of mental toughness, at all.

You first have to believe in what you're doing, and no one, learning something new, believes that new is necessarily improved until they can feel it.

Start him too early, and he may never fully believe in his new mechanics.

From what I could tell, I dont think Tannehill is in need of major mechanical overhaul at all.

He has a compact, quick release and has good footwork.

What he lacks is experience.

I don't think he should start his first year, but I don't think he needs to sit for a lot more than that, either.

One thing is for sure.

There isn't much this team did over the last few years that a rookie quarterback couldn't do.

No, it isn't a big adjustment, but that is why it can be so easy to fall back into the old familiar habit.

I think it all depends on the mentality of the player.


Look at Manning. He was thrown to the wolves, sucked his first year, then has owned since.

Some guys never recover from that.


What did Matt Ryan do his first year as a starter? I'm curious and can't remember.

Hey Direckshun word is Wright had 16% body fat at the combine which is a huge red flag. Some teams have put a 3rd round grade on him. He would be great value in the second

First year, Matty Ice completed 61.1% 3,440 yrds 7.93ypa 16td 11int 87.7rtg

Pretty solid, not spectacular numbers. Little better than Dalton's imo
58.1% 3,398yds 6.59 20td 13int 80.4rtg

Interestingly, they were both QBs on teams that were horrible the year before and lead them to a first round playoff loss to eventual SB participants. Unfortunately, every team Matt Ryan has lost to in the playoffs has advanced to the SB. Ouch.

That'd be awesome if he fell that far.