As is the collective (and minority) opinion of you CP geniuses.

except history seems to validate the opinion that this is not the right move.

Aaaaaaaamen.
Posted via Mobile Device

Nor does he seem to understand how one increases the odds of winning a championship, much less fielding a team that can be legitimately after one every year, yes.
Posted via Mobile Device

Go back and read the article that quoted an AFC executive saying that, at a minimum, the Chiefs overpaid for AS and, most likely, the 49ers engaged in thievery. The exec talked about how no one really wanted AS the year before, including Harbaugh (who tried to get Manning).

NFL execs are usually polite when assessing the trades of another team. There is an unwritten code that you do not say one team was cheated. He basically said we were cheated. He was right.

But then, a bunch of journalists say it is a good move and fall for the argument that you espoused. Who do you believe? An exec who has no incentive to diss Roberts, or journalists that know only how to report statistics and say silly things like "The 49ers were one dropped kick away from the SB" as if AS deserved credit for that? In my view, the 49ers could have gone to the SB with most any QB that year -- their team was just that good. It was like an adult team playing against children. It took repeated errors to cost them the NFC Championship.

Hell yeah. They want to do business with them in the future. The sooner the better, for their team.

What you're assuming is that Geno is an elite QB. Or at the very least, he has an average chance of being elite. Maybe he has contra indicators that make him a worse than average gamble. You hire football experts to make those calls. Some of them fail, but it's worth noting that no NFL team has ever hired their GM from the message board ranks.

There simply isnt an angle from which i can believe that Clark, all of his steeped consultants, then Dorsey and Reid... do not know what their current league perception is, zero respect, see the manning no show.

Something has completely convinced them they can win with Axl, didnt see it coming at all, Reid is doing a TOTAL 180 from his trademark "keep firing", from mobile cannons like mcnabb and vick to a controlled passing, run first game?... not at all what i anticipated or expected based on his last decade plus.

Yet they're somehow doing something unexpected and different, i'll take "they must have some grand reason behind this" for $1000, alex.

Been wrong on this before, but its actually smelling pretty good in the kitchen right now.

I'd like to think they see something special in Alex Smith that they can work with, but I'm more inclined to think that they see nothing special in Geno Smith that they can work with.

The Kansas City Chiefs haven't had TWO consecutive playoff appearances since 1994-1995, yet you're concerned that the Chiefs aren't making the right moves in which to win a Super Bowl?

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Know how you get those 2+ consecutive playoff appearances? You build the team with winning a Super Bowl in mind. From day ****ing 1.

That goes for the 0-16 Lions, the 2-14 Chiefs, and even the current Super Bowl champs Baltimore Ravens.

So yeah. If you're taking #1 overall picks and turning them into negligible improvements (if they are that at all) on the offensive line, then you're building the team the wrong way. You're not building with the Super Bowl in mind. You're building in the name of this religious dogma called "Best Player Available."

And that doesn't get you consecutive playoff appearances. It gets you the Chiefs since Joe Montana retired.

Andy Reid has a record of building a team with consecutive playoff appearances. What makes you think he doesn't know how to do that? And that you do?

Reach for need, which is what you advocate when you say our QB isn't good enough so we need to take one immediately with our top pick, is the opposite of what the teams Clark is trying to pattern the Chiefs after do. Teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Baltimore Ravens, who have combined for 4 of the last 13 Super Bowls, adhere to that dogma you're belittling because it's a better way to achieve a longer, more lasting brand of success.

The Packers can do that because they have a QB. The Eagles (largely) were able to do that. And that also explains the Steelers and Ravens.

I'm trying to advocate against building the San Francisco way simply because it's so damn hard to find that many talented players across the board, THEN keep them all happy contract-wise. It's a lot easier to fill one position and simply make good selections (i.e. BPA) than it is to take an Alex Smith or Matt Cassel and depend so heavily on finding that Justin Smith, five studs on the offensive line, Aldon Smith, etc.

And before you leap down my throat with "San Francisco almost won teh Super BOWL!!!" I'm talking about team BUILDING. Alex Smith may have been pretty successful with the 49ers, but who was accompanying him on that team, and how long did it take to acquire all those guys? That's a lot of drafts. It also means rolling a yahtzee on your coaches and your GM.

That's not to say that the Packers and other teams who espouse "BPA" don't require years of player acquisition and development, or that they don't have great supporting casts. They do, but there's no question who keeps those teams going. The 2011 San Francisco 49ers with just two or three injuries to crucial players on that team turn into a 90s Chiefs squad who can't ever turn the corner. The 2010 Green Bay Packers had at least double the injuries to crucial players on that roster and won the Super Bowl anyway.

I know which way I'd rather build.

Is this your only argument you ever make on here? "WHERE'S YOUR TEAM, MR. FANCYPANTS GM HUHR HUHR HUHR?????"