bye

We can hope in one hand and shit in the other, per standard operating prochiefsure...

Thing is, they're not "polishing" anything. They've got the best prospects on the squad fetching donuts behind Chase "reliable turd" Daniel.

None of these people were involved in what happened in the 80s. That history has zero to do with Reid and Dorsey.

You guys really think Clark Hunt tells them he never wants a hotshot young QB because he wants to go 8-8 every year, because that's what he thinks makes him the most money?

I really would like to know if there are actual humans who believe this.

And don't try to tell me that Chase "reliable turd" Daniel is the only QB behind Alex on the roster that is "smart" enough to learn and execute Reid's jank-assed, short-bomb playbook.

Nope. Ain't buyin'.

Trying to draft a develop a QB takes time and opens you up for seasons which are well below .500. Teams that are consistently below 8-8 don't make money because no one wants to go to their games. It's too risky.

Similarly, if you do get a QB to pan out and he becomes all-pro level, it becomes incredibly expensive to retain said QB. It's too risky to have that much money tied up in just one player.

The Chiefs' two Super Bowl appearances came with a QB whom was acquired from another team. The last playoff victory came with a QB whom was acquired from another team. Drafting a developing an actual QBotF is not a priority to the ownership and is therefore not a priority with the rest of the front office.

Common sense tells us that there are probably no legitimate prospects to ever be NFL starters on the roster

LMAO

Really, do you think the Chiefs have ever lost money? That the team's profitability hangs on the gate receipts each week? The NFL's TV deals are collectively worth something like $40 billion

It's the simplest explanation why a franchise routinely avoids making a move to draft a QB in the first round.

It's too risky and too expensive.

The simplest explanation is that they had no confidence in their ability to select and develop one. The money is neither here nor there when you look at how they paid Jackson, Dorsey, or any of the other non qbs they drafted high.

Right. Clark doesn't want any part of all that revenue that winning the Super Bowl would bring in. He doesn't want a QB he'd have to pay 20 mill instead of 15 mill a year. He doesn't want to be able to raise ticket prices on the level they would after a super bowl. He doesn't want to sell all the new season tickets that would result or get any of the money it would bring in from sponsorships or premium seating and luxury suites or anything else. He doesn't want any of the associated revenue or merchandising or publicity for his team at all. He just sits in his owners box with binoculars counting butts on game day. He wants the vastly higher revenue stream that a middling team provides.

Is that about it?

Do you not realize that the salary cap is slotted now. No longer the gazillion $$$ contracts?

Your argument would have held water 5 years ago but not now.

There's a solution to that, you know.

And it starts above round 3.

And I have no doubt that if they are in need of a starting QB and there's someone worth taking at their draft position they have that year, they would do it.

Since the post you quoted says I don't think that, I'm pretty sure I don't think that... and I'm sure no one else does, either.

History also didn't have anything to do with Pioli or Carl/Herm or Carl/Vermiel, Carl/Marty, or most of the 80s... and here we are.

Just a really, really long string of bad luck, wrong place/time, etc, huh?

Well, the Chiefs seem to operate under the assumption that it's 1990, so you're saying they should change their logic in another 20 years or so?