Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 8283643)

You seem to think finding a QB can't coexist with loading up on elite talent.

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 8283643)

Let me ask you this, would you prefer a new RT for our new QB next year, or a stud RB?

Originally Posted by CaliforniaChief (Post 8283654)

If we can't move up and grab RG3, then I'd love Richardson. Detoxing made all the points...but a Charles/Richardson/McCluster combination would just be SICK.

Originally Posted by HMc (Post 8283659)

I'm amazed how quickly planeteers that claim to want to strip the cupboard bare and build the team properly are suddenly in love with a running back because it will give us a great 1-2 punch with JC.

**** me, how many downs do you think we're going to have to exploit this fabulous combo without a QB?

Larry Johnson was the best thing since Jim Brown when he was here because he had a bit of bulk about him and ran through people (on occasion). We got two good seasons out of him and now he's out of the league.

Even IF Richardson is the second coming and we have the best RBBC in the league, how does that help us win games in the NFL? You can count on RBs giving you about three excellent years these days before they pop a knee ligament of just become worn out.

By the time any QB we get is good enough to let us compete, thie Richardson will either be busted, or will have pissed of to NYC or Washington for crazy money.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8283680)

Wrong. Finding a QB absolutely CAN coexist with loading up on elite talent, even at RB.

I'm not saying it can't coexist, I'm saying it WON'T coexist. This isn't Baltimore. This is Kansas City.



Yes, I actually would. You don't build an offense around a RT and even an elite RT isn't good enough to mask our QB deficiencies completely. Another RB the caliber of Charles absolutely is. How do I know? Because Charles' injury is usually listed as the #1 reason Cassel wasn't any good again this year.

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 8283691)

I know what you mean, i just don't agree. I would rather the Chiefs take the BPA and as Romeo likes to say, "Let the chips fall where they may".

I, unlike you, don't feel like any running game will mask Cassel.

Cassel was a huge liability even when Charles was running hard in '10.

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 8283686)

No one is saying we want a RB over a QB smart guy. But unless they trade UP, there won't be one there worth taking.

This isn't a debate over RB VS QB. This is a debate about RB vs wtf is left on the board. And saying a RB is going to give you only three years is reeruned. Pretty sure RB's die off around age 30, not age 23.

Originally Posted by HMc (Post 8283689)

If we can get someone to anchor a position in the OL (and not be crap at it) for the best part of the next decade, then I would happily spend the 12th pick on that guy.

Originally Posted by bevischief (Post 8281958)

Richardson would help make Cassel look like a quarterback.

Originally Posted by HMc (Post 8283736)

What about either of:

JONATHAN MARTIN, OT, STANFORD
RILEY REIFF, OT, IOWA

They're projected to go in the first aren't they?<!-- .playerHead --><!-- .playerHead -->

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8283693)

"Cassel has won here. Cassel took us to the playoffs." - Romeo Crennel

Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan (Post 8284097)

I think if you listen to the presser and the radio interview on 810 it makes you think that if he answered honestly, Crennel would much rather have Orton. He even said that if Orton was here there would be a QB issue.

Its scary to hear a Chief coach defend Cassel out load, but I think Crennel is all for a new QB if Pioli is willing to do it.

Originally Posted by morphius (Post 8284122)

That, and if you want to trade him, even for a late pick, you can't destroy the guy.