I don't think taking a QB with only 16 starts is smart at #3. There's to much risk of a bust involved. Odds are strongly in favor of the #3 being a totally wasted pick if the Chiefs pick Sanchex and the Chiefs/Pioli can't afford that at this juncture.

PhilFree:arrow:

This is the most reeruned argument I've heard yet. I'm only playing devils advocate here, but you are not "essentially spending a top 5 pick on a RT". You are spending the #3 on a LT and a #15 on a RT. Stop saying this you ****ing clones.

Why not?

When will we be able to afford this risk?

20 years from now? We're currently at the midpoint?

The interesting thing I have noticed about the Planet is that there is absolutely no consensus. Rather, three or four participants stake out diametrically opposed positions and call each other reeruned. Then, someone suggests a third approach, or a compromise ... and they tend to get labeled as reeruned too. *lol*

Tough crowd, but fun. For the record, I encourage Scott to trade down and wheel and deal all day. I trust him completely to know how to get value. If we can't trade down, taking either Curry or the best LT is fine with me. Those of you attacking the best LT idea, that could allow Scott to trade that LT later in the first round when Philly realizes there are no stud tackles left by the time they pick and Scott dangles Monroe for them.

Some here would argue to take Sanchez and use him for trade bait. But, if no one bites, we have a huge contract for someone that won't be playing in 2009. At least with a stud LT, if no one will offer value for him later in Day One, he will play in 2009, and can be traded to a team for a boat load of picks in 2010 when someone's LT goes down for the season (e.g. Pace and Walter Jones alert here).

"too much risk"? What are we risking missing out on, getting back to 9-7 as quickly as possible?

Because there's such a huge chance that he'll bust and we do have Cassel. I hope some team sees it differently then me and trades up to #3 for him.


PhilFree:arrow:

What's the difference? You still have a shit ton of money wrapped up in TWO left tackles! Name a successful team that's drafted TWO left tackles in consecutive years, especially when the current left tackle played brilliantly in his first season?

The idea of drafting Monroe is so monumentally ****ing stupid that only a ****ing moron would support it.

No. You're going in a different direction.

Why can't we afford to take this risk? When should we?

There's a huge chance anyone we select will bust, for one reason or another, so let's not even visit this line of argumentation

But back to the two questions above...

Phil, this is ****ing dumbest argument you've made yet.

The only reason you think that Sanchez will bust is because of his "lack" of starts. You fail to recognize his poise in the pocket, his accuracy, leadership and football smarts.

****ing stupid. As usual.

Exactly. Implicit whenever someone references "most immediate impact."

He's a moron.

What is "Huge" anyway? Is he stating that there's a 85% chance that Sanchez will be a total NFL failure?

That's just plain dumb.

Well so far going 4-12 and 2-14 has done nothing to help this team become a championchip caliber team. I mean this 3rd pick in the draft has us in such a great position.

PhilFree:arrow:

Cassell's 16 starts > than Sanchez's 14.

The difference is stark.

So why can't we afford the risk?

When should we?

Thats horrible. There may be someone related to a special needs child reading this.