Or the 2001 Ravens or Giants, the 91 Giants, 86 Bears, 2003 Bucs, any of Marty's Chief teams, the 2004 Titans, 2003 Steelers...the list goes on.

Funny how those teams that have success with a game manager at QB and a solid running game with a really good defense have problems being competitive year in, year out and the teams that have dependable guys under center are so much more consistent.

oh yeah, shit.

I was thinking about a century.

Carry on.

Actually, a duplicitous dbag would more likely fit a person who alters a quote header so it can't be linked back, and characterizes a remark from the playoffs from last year as 'for earlier this year.' True in the sense that it was January 2008, but dbagly duplicitous in that you suggest it was regarding this years jags, or a take from when the jags were sucky.
And I've already said I haven't seen enough of the jags this year to know why they've fallen off.
And this whole argument has been more about what you HAVE TO sacrifice and where you HAVE TO get a franchise QB, because he can only come from a top draft pick, way more than what skill sets he has. I want a smart, mistake-free leader from wherever we find or develop him, and a great team around him as previously outlined. You want to tank seasons for a shot at blue-chippers, who most often get their blue chip status off physique and arm strength and other attributes that belie how they'll respond to the NFL game.

Okay, three times a generation? Four? Seven? Does a Stafford come along every year? This was the major foundation of your initial argument for throwing games, because Stafford is an "amazingly rare prospect" http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...=palmer&page=4 - Post 49.

Would you still want to throw games if Stafford wasn't there?

You wanna know why the Jags suck?

Because they gave Garrard 60 million and he ****ing sucks, and their hard-nosed Marty clone coach has half their team at each others throats because of chemistry problems and all the thugs they've brought in.

Who does that remind you of?

And I didn't alter the quote header at all. Anyone knows who I'm referring to, your candyass, and I've quoted that same post more than once with your clown shoes self attached to it.

Sorry, I'll take a 50% shot at drafting a pro bowl QB, which is what your odds in the NFL the last several years are.

One more time, for posterity, and I'm going to 'alter' the tag again (how will the boys at CSI solve this one?)

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...7&postcount=26

And it doesn't matter if you posted that this year, or 10 years ago. You said you aspire to be the 2007 Jags, which I have made clear numerous times. I didn't say 2008 Jags, but the '08 Jags are what happens when you put all your chips in with that formula. It's not my fault that you end up running from your argument like a scared little bitch, claiming that I was making inferences to the '08 Jags, when I've said the 2007 multiple times not only in this thread, but on this very ****ing page.

Amazingly rare would seem to indicate a once every five year prospect. Please though, continue on this semantic distraction while you formulate another 300 response poll, though.

And would I want us to lose this year for a higher draft pick even if Stafford weren't there? Hell yes. This team needs ****ing playmakers, not Rocky Boiman and Wade Smith

Other than Stafford, who are those playmakers this year?

Orakpo is a playmaker. Taylor Mays is a playmaker. Maualuga is a playmaker. Options 2 and 3 don't have top 5 value, but I believe Orakpo does. Beanie Wells will be a Larry Johnson type back (I wouldn't take him, though). And there are 3-4 franchise LTs in this draft.

So, assuming Stafford is gone, which he probably will be, you are saying the Chiefs are better off this year to have the #2 pick and to reach for one of those guys?

Eazyb is gonna show up and yell at you because according to him Aaron Curry is light years better than Maualuga.

Cool. He's a once-per-five-years project. I just wanted to know.

Serious question. If Stafford isn't there, do you still want to draft a QB with that spot? I don't know that prospects well enough to express an opinion yet, but it'll sure be disappointing if we have a top-three pick and there's no worthy prospect available.

yes, we get a higher pick in every round...think Flowers...think how many times a player we wanted was taken just ahead of us?

Right, but specific to the first round, what do you think? It seems when teams miss on top 5 picks or have to overpay on a reach that it sets them back a lot of times.

Hamas has stated several times he is against a trade to drop down a few slots, even if that means adding some more good talent in this or next draft.

And it always stems from waning "Elite Playmakers." My question is if there aren't really any of those other than Stafford, and there are several guys like Mays, Orakpo, Oher, etc that could be had a little later, wouldn't it make sense to try to move back?

The odds of being able to trade out of a top 5 pick is very very slim, unless you are willing to take less than what your pick is worth.

You are assuming that

A) Stafford is gone
B) Orakpo won't have a top 5 grade
C) That picking 34 instead of 37 has no value.

I'm just asking if a team did want to, and say we could drop to 10 and get value for the pick we were giving up, would you want to this year?

My theory is that the top five picks are overvalued in the draft charts. I could be wrong, but I think that NFL draft chart was originally put together by the Cowboys decades ago. I think the fact that so few organizations make trades out of that spot means that those artificial values are set too high.

There are no other QBs worth a top 15 pick to me in this year's class, unless Mark Sanchez declares. I wouldn't be happy with us spending 3 on him, but I wouldn't be furious.

My personal wants for the Chiefs this year are:

1 Stafford
2 Orakpo
3 Maualuga/Mays

We'll get one of the first two. There's no way St. Louis passes on both a QB and a LT. They'll take one or the other. The real no man's land for us is 4-5, and we are guaranteed top three, so we're good.

And FTR, he's a once every five year type QB. Just like Mario Williams is a once-in-every-five-year type DE and Adrian Peterson a RB, Sean Taylor a S, and Patrick Willis a Mike Backer.

not to sound flippant, but i don't really care about Clark's money...we have a ridiculous amount of cap space, and it goes up every year..as long as you aren't signing lots of vets to long term contracts the cap shouldn't be much of an issue...

i don't know who the next best player is...i haven't watched any of the DE's, so your guess is as good as mine...I've watched Mays and think he is bad ass, but at #2? that's tough...i wouldn't be averse to moving down 2-3 spots, but how often does someone trade for the #2 if it isn't a QB?

in the end, you probably just pick some one and let Clark's bank account worry about it...

The good news is that DE and MLB are positions of crying need.

I'd really hate to spend a top pick on a MLB, but then again I'm sure tired of seeing us get destroyed up the middle.

We're not drafting a MLB. It's going to be a QB or RDE, barring something batshit insane happening.

The challenge is that players are going to get taken ahead of you if you trade down. Like you, I really don't care about Clark's money, so I'd rather have the second-best player in the draft than the fifth-best and the 50th-best or whatever. I'd rather have dense concentrations of talent than breadth of talent.

yeah, ultimately i want the best player we can get even we are perceived to have over paid based on draft position....

we can fill out the roster with the rest of the draft, first round is for finding stars...

I said this before Clark wants a primetime QB, and thus getting a a new regime that will draft him one.

That makes me very happy!

Early warning symptoms of TFS:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pg44SsvzIVw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pg44SsvzIVw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

For as hammered as I have been at Chiefs games, I am proud to announce that I have never once felt the urge to play air guitar to Van Halen, or any song for that matter.

I call "bumping for controversy" on you, Wendler! :D

EDIT: Jesus Tapdancing Christ; "drool catcher to row 3 please".
TFS Final Solution, STAT!

ROFL Holy ****! That is just The SHIT!ROFL

I put that video right up there with "air-drumming" at the Rush concert.:doh!: