ChiefsPlanet
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Drafting a rookie quarterback. (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=256391)

Munson 02-22-2012 06:43 PM
I'd give a rookie first round pick (hopefully RGIII) 2-3 seasons, as long as he continually shows progress. If he starts to look like Cassel or Palko, I'll beat him upside the head with a burning AIDS tree branch.

whoman69 02-22-2012 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8391242)
Cassel is only 30 guys, give him some time.
If I thought you were serious I'd have you neg repped into hell.

Chiefaholic 02-22-2012 06:48 PM
Myself... Have to give the rookie an opportunity to develop chemistry with his WR's, learn the playbook, and adjust to the speed of the NFL. You'd have to realistically wait till after his third season to give an honest opinion whether or not he's a franchise caliber guy or not. But, after reading this board for many years, I GUARANTEE there will be the typical drama queens (ex: Gochiefs) who'll be calling for his head by week six of his first season. If these fellas had their way, we would have already traded all of our playmakers for next to nothing in compensation.

Chiefaholic 02-22-2012 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munson (Post 8391270)
I'd give a rookie first round pick (hopefully RGIII) 2-3 seasons, as long as he continually shows progress. If he starts to look like Cassel or Palko, I'll beat him upside the head with a burning AIDS tree branch.

Like Trent Green's first season? It's a damn shame we had a cancer of a defense to go along with the offensive show Green, Gonzo, Kennison, and Holmes displayed. Last years defense with Green's offense would have been a legit Superbowl contender last season.

Coogs 02-22-2012 09:22 PM
This is the crappy thing about building the team first... then adding the QB, vs. getting the QB first... then building the team around him.

If all of the team is in place... which we are close to having... then having to wait 3 to 4 years for the QB to beccome championship worthy, then the rest of the team is in decline and you have to begin all over.

If the QB is added first... then he can have his learning curve while the team is being built, and you can have a 10 year run or so... kind of like the Colts just got done with.

hometeam 02-22-2012 09:24 PM
3-4 years maximum is all anyone gets as a chance in this league. Whether it be GMs, coaches, players, etc. If they cannot perform in that time they are out.

jaa1025 02-22-2012 10:38 PM
Depends on how he looked.

If he looked like a Tebow clone then I would be calling for his head by year 2. If he showed flashes of brilliance mixed in with mistakes I'd say 3 years.

Mr. Laz 02-22-2012 10:44 PM
he'd be given about 8 games before he'd be called a bust unless he pulled a Cam Newton.

lewdog 02-22-2012 11:20 PM
I would say 3 years as well. Especially if we are winning between 6 and 8 games in those first 2 years because that is pretty much what we do anyway.

Rasputin 02-23-2012 12:03 AM
It's not going to matter come December 21/ Mayans.

RealSNR 02-23-2012 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laz (Post 8391950)
he'd be given about 8 games before he'd be called a bust unless he pulled a Cam Newton.
False.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 8390877)
I'd certainly give him three years. Probably even four if fans could see gradual, steady, improvement.

A lot of fans think Chiefsplanet wouldn't be patient with a rookie QB. Bullshit. A rookie QB represents a franchise willing to pull the trigger and roll the dice. A rookie QB is everything this franchise has NOT done in all its years of futility. Do you think these fans would be anxious to flush him down the toilet that easily so we can trade and develop another Elvis Cassel? I sure as hell don't.

chiefzilla1501 02-23-2012 07:46 AM
it would be the flip. True fans would give him too little time, non true fans would give him too much. Mark Sanchez is living proof of that. He was always better than critics gave him credit for but worse than lovers gave him credit for. But because this place is so black and white he was polarizing.

I'd give a young qb three years. But I'd still stockpile qbs on the side. Much as we rave about first round qbs over cassel, teams like Tampa aren't in a much different situation than we are. Hell, I still feel the jets and ravens are insanely talented teams held back by their qb. I think we often oversimplify how easy it is to find a franchise qb. It's why I hate the idea of drafting a first round qb for the sake of drafting one. No. You still have to wait for the right one and if you can get him, you move mountains to get him.

milkman 02-23-2012 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 8392230)
it would be the flip. True fans would give him too little time, non true fans would give him too much. Mark Sanchez is living proof of that. He was always better than critics gave him credit for but worse than lovers gave him credit for. But because this place is so black and white he was polarizing.

I'd give a young qb three years. But I'd still stockpile qbs on the side. Much as we rave about first round qbs over cassel, teams like Tampa aren't in a much different situation than we are. Hell, I still feel the jets and ravens are insanely talented teams held back by their qb. I think we often oversimplify how easy it is to find a franchise qb. It's why I hate the idea of drafting a first round qb for the sake of drafting one. No. You still have to wait for the right one and if you can get him, you move mountains to get him.
The Jets are not insanely talented.

They spent money in free agency a couple of years ago, and teams that build thier core through free agency have never had sustained success, nor have they gone to a SB.

And that core of free agents is aging.

chiefzilla1501 02-23-2012 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman (Post 8394388)
The Jets are not insanely talented.

They spent money in free agency a couple of years ago, and teams that build thier core through free agency have never had sustained success, nor have they gone to a SB.

And that core of free agents is aging.
They have an all-world offensive line that is a QB's wet dream. Productive RBs. Very good receivers. And while their defense has had some ups and downs the past two years, it's still one of the better defenses in the league.

There is no excuse for a QB not to be extremely productive with that team. Very few rookies walk into a situation like that.

milkman 02-23-2012 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 8394399)
They have an all-world offensive line that is a QB's wet dream. Productive RBs. Very good receivers. And while their defense has had some ups and downs the past two years, it's still one of the better defenses in the league.

There is no excuse for a QB not to be extremely productive with that team. Very few rookies walk into a situation like that.
Their "all-world" O-Line wasn't nearly as good this season as it was in previous seasons, and their running game, which was their bread and butter has declined in each of the last two seasons.

And yes, Mark Sanchez has been a disappointment.

But tell me all the teams that built thier core group through free agency that have participated in the SB.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:16 PM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.