You've proven his point. To be consistently competitive you need a franchise QB.

Then, heck, I guess we should hope we go 0-16 next year then, eh? ;)

I once posted that my hope from the Cassel trade was the unintended consequence of the mistake. At the time, I said that maybe it would put us in position to select Barkley, which ironically could be a possibility.

Yep.

That's a false dichotomy. Picking a QB with a #1 doesn't eliminate every other draft pick you could potentially make in either that year or future years, nor does it eliminate the possibility of adding depth via FA.

No, he didn't "perform" all year.

He sucked ass for most of teh first half of the season.

I jumped on his bandwagon when I saw him actually doing things an NFL QB should be doing, i.e., using good mechanics when dropping back and making throws, stepping up in the pocket, making actual reads and calling audibles.

While others have returned to bashing him, which is their right, because he did regress, I remain on his bandwagon, because I saw those things for the first time in his career, and I believe that he finally has the building blocks to grow into a consistent NFL QB that you can win with.

1. QB

2. QB

3. QB


It'll never happen, though. We're stuck with Cassel for at least another year or two, maybe more.

Knowing that, I go NT, ILB, OLB, WR, in no particular order, with C and OT not far behind.

Using your most valuable pick on a guy who may not be any better than the guy you already have isn't a good way to address any of the glaring deficiencies that surround that guy.

LOL, and then there's this.

This draft is ****in staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacked at WR. Are you going to draft a OL with the 1st pick? Nope. So what other position on offense besides OL and WR do the Chiefs need help with where using a 1st round pick on wouldn't be completely reeruned? QB.

Well, we're not talking about the most important position on the team, are we?

No coincidence that 6 of the remaining 8 teams are QB'd by 1st round picks.

Or we could just sit around for another decade hoping that our 7th round career backup becomes an elite QB, just because Tom Brady did.

Tom Brady did it his first year as a starter and here we are 3 years later praising a QB who didn't take a 16-0 team to the playoffs :deevee:

When a draft is stacked at WR, you take a WR if you need a WR. We could get a WR that might go top 10 in other years because there are so many studs.

That wasnt my point... We can look else where with the 1st pick and get a WR in the 2nd/3rd and still end up with a solid WR to lineup opposite of Bowe. With so many people rising the draft charts WR's like Baldwin might not be looking at a 1st round selection anymore.

Head Coach
O cordinator
QB
3 good WR's

You have to look at the value of the slot. If there is a WR that would normally grade out as a top 10 pick, you take him if he falls to you. Getting a high first talent with a low first is a better deal than getting a high second talent with a late second. Compare the draft value charts if you want to see how big that difference is.

Top priority should be NT. That doesn't really mean we should draft one in the first round, but they need to have one targeted. A true nose tackle will elevate the whole defense. Vrabel is about to retire(if i had to guess) and Im not sold on belcher in pass coverage, so linebacker is a need, inside and out. There is a need at Wr and interior O-line. Need a center who doesn't have trouble maintaining weight down the stretch. A more physical center turns this run game up to 11. Less finesse and more smashmouth please. Also a playmaking wide receiver who isn't too small to play every down.

Address these needs and we could compete and defend the AFCW crown.

Why limit their first pick in the draft to offense? And then, why exclude 7/12ths of the possible positions that one might select on offense? If you have a more sensible question for me, I'd be glad to entertain it.

I'm not limiting anything.... Holy reading comprehension.

So you would take a player in the 1st that you could take later in the draft? Ya... Thats about the most reeruned thing I've ever heard of. That's something Josh McDaniels does.

Your argument doesn't even support your position. If your theory is that it's so important to draft a QB in the 1st round, why are you wasting a 2nd and a 3rd on QB too?

Seriously, there's a reason no modern era team has ever drafted QB, QB, QB in the first 3 rounds of the draft and it's not because no one, before you, was ever smart enough to think of it.

Drafting away from a draft's strength, when you have needs at those areas of strength, doesn't sound like a brilliant idea to me either. Tyson Jackson disagrees with me though so you've got that going for you.

I'm going to go out on a limb that his 1. 2. 3. comment with QB listed next to them was to emphasize the importance of a QB and not him thinking we should draft a QB 3 rounds in a row.

Ummm...I believe you've missed the point of the hyperbole. What are the three most important factors in real estate?

1. Location
2. Location
3. Location

What position do we need?

1. Quarterback
2. Quarterback
3. Quarterback

Did you not discount the idea of drafting OL or WR with the first round pick? I think you did.

Ya. Lets draft someone like Baldwin just because before guys like Blackmon busted on the scene he was targeted to go top 15. Now he's projected as maybe bouncing to the second. But by all means lets take him at 21 instead of perhaps trading down and taking him later.

You're a dumbass and can't comprehend what you read.

:LOL: OK. Hit me up when you figure out how to dumb your question down enough for it to make sense.

Perhaps he can't comprehend what he read in your post because you're a dumbass that writes poorly.

I already did in previous posts generated at dumbasses in your IQ range.

Or perhaps he decided to not read the entire conversation and only came in at the end to look like a moron just like you.

No.

It's you.

You haven't yet clearly made a point.

I believe I have. It's posted in this thread. If you can't find it might I suggest visiting your local Wally-world for an eye check?

I understood all along that OTW58 was using hyperbole. I honestly don't understand the point you were trying to make.

Here you go bud. I'll quote it for ya.

This was all directed at someone shooting down the idea of going after a QB in round 1. That's why I was only focused on the offensive side of the ball. We can afford to pick a QB in the first, if one falls or we trade up for one, and still walk away with every single need. There are still going to be WR's when our second or third pick comes around, because there are so many of them, that will be more than serviceable opposite Bowe. No one is picking OL in the first because there are far more important and game changing positions in football...

All caught up now?

:LOL:LMAO

Thanks, I read that the first time. I don't understand why you insist that we draft an offensive player with that first pick though. I also don't understand why you take OL off the table. I understand, but don't agree with, your rationale for waiting to take a WR later in the draft.

Here are the positions I'd lean toward in the first round: WR, OL, LB, NT. If a guy as coveted as Andrew Luck somehow fell to us, I'd be willing to take him just like I'd be willing to take an unbelievable value at CB, RB, or DE. It would be hard for me to consider taking a TE, FB, or S with that pick. I'm not particularly interested in trading up. I'd trade down if we got a favorable return and if we believe the guy we want will still be there when we pick.

Where am I INSISTING we draft offense in round 1? :facepalm:

You asked me a question about what position we should take with our first round pick and you limited it to offense (minus WR or OL). Do I need to quote you again?

I answered my own question. I wasnt asking you a damn thing. Quote away, idiot.

hahahahahaahaaaaaa. comedy.

Don't quote my posts and then address your question to "you" if you don't want it to look like you're asking me a question. Beyond that, it's not the greatest of ideas to ask stupid questions and answer them yourself with stupid answers, in general, but if that's your thing, knock yourself out.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll be sure to consider your level of dumbassery next time I quote you.

I'm all caught up on my daily dose of stupid. I especially enjoyed the part about how nobody drafts OL in the first round. Also, your strategy of getting two mediocre players instead of an elite player and a mediocre player was illuminating.

Ya. Getting Baldwin at 21 is clearly more elite than getting someone like Baldwin later in the first or early second. My bad.

Well, at least no one's accused Pioli of being a Nazi for trading the farm for Cassel....that I'm aware of anyway. 200+ posts without Godwin's Law....and a QB discussion. Nice. Heh.

Without going through the thread, would any of you draftnicks be kind enough to tell me who the top DT prospects are this year?

It seems like free agency may not be the cure for NT from what i've read here at the Planet, Aubrayo Franklin is a decent possibility but not a true stud, Ngata is a pipe dream, no way baltimore lets him get away.

What young firebrand can we draft?

Jerrell Powe out of Ole Miss is the man we should be looking at.

Thanx CC, i'll look him up.

Whatever we do, DO NOT DRAFT A QB OR QB DEPTH./stasis-lover.

I didnt vote QB because, realistically, its just not happening.

Would you want Locker?
I think he is all that is going to be there in the 1st
We probably won't even draft a developmental QB

I'm all for drafting a QB, I just dont see Pioli doing it now.

Or sign a Vet. We must not undermine delicate ego's and confidence.