ChiefsPlanet - Chiefs Starting to think the Chiefs will need to trade down... or...

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Starting to think the Chiefs will need to trade down... or... (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=254851)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan (Post 8284140)

Thats also true, although honestly for my own piece of mind, I would rather hear them rip him and promise me he is gone than be tortured for months to get a late pick.

lol, sorry, as Chiefs fans we are meant to suffer. You should be used to it by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prhom (Post 8283649)

The only thing worse than passing on a QB would be reaching for a qb that we could get in the second.

That said I'd love to have another great RB to go with Charles. This season is a good example of why you need to have a tandem of RBs. Charles may or may not be the same as before after he recovers. We drafted LJ when Priest was healthy and it seemed strange but then when we needed LJ he was ready to go. Whether or not drafting Richardson will keep us from getting a QB I don't know but I would rather draft a talent with our first pick than trade down for a couple extra bodies.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

I'm not at all cool with this new "let's get an elite RB in the first" poster fad. We HAVE an elite RB. He needs a backup/reliever, not an equal. Historically teams find good RBs in the 3 or 4 and we have too many actual gaping holes to use our 1st as a luxury pick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 8283787)

They're both right tackle selections, however. I think Pioli wants more bang for his buck here.

Like he did with the 3rd pick 3 years ago.

Richardson sure would help Stanzi look good after about game 6 or 7 when Cassel gets pulled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8282595)

A right tackle doesn't dictate offensive philosophy. A RB like Richardson does.

Ask the Vikings how much they're enjoying the playoffs. Or ask the Jags.

Huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius (Post 8284300)

lol, sorry, as Chiefs fans we are meant to suffer. You should be used to it by now.

Yeah haha. I am used to the feeling.

htidmaqe.....it seems like everyone else knows what they're talking about but you. You seem to like to argue and that's it. I think a power RB would do wonders for the Chiefs. Having a good running game can cover up a not so stellar OL when a PA pass only takes about 3 sec to pull off, they can at least hold that long. I like that idea a lot. The goal is to try and find depth so something like this year's injuries doesn't decimate the team as much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Setsuna (Post 8284418)

I agree with what you are saying.

I think what H is after is the fact that he would be a band aid on a broken leg. Just a cover up to the real problem of a qb and not having one.

Cassel did not have to win games last year, and it would be very tempting to do the whole ground and pound approach with defense again.

It would win us quite a few games but we have all seen what happens against a real qb. We lose.

That is what he is worrying about more than the player I think.

We need to trade UP and get the best QB prospect in the draft.

It's not going to ham-string our team long-term.

Grow a set of balls and quit justifying just going through the motions.

40 years of nothing-40 years of zero franchise QBs...this is a no-brainer, folks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 8284323)

How do you feel about the "luxury" pick of Eric Berry #5?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan (Post 8284470)

Will not happen. Pioli Might trade up for Luck, but Luck won't be available. IF someone is willing to auction their pick for RG3 away, it would cost WAY too much, and Pioli wouldn't pull the trigger for RG3. His boom/bust factor is too high for that kind of investment.

So, at 11/12, no QB's available, who do you pick?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aturnis (Post 8284487)

How do you feel about the "luxury" pick of Eric Berry #5?

We had a need at safety. Not a luxury pick.

My crystal balls say that someone in love with Richardson will trade down with us when he is available when we pick. We get at least an extra 3 out of the trade and move down to get Tannehill/Wilson at value.

The first part comes through less fuzzy than the second part of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 8284509)

We had a need at safety. Not a luxury pick.

We have a need for RB. Jamaal cannot carry the load.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie (Post 8284516)

Don't think Pioli would fall in love with Tannehill. He'd probably just take a guy later and develop him along with Stanzi. Tannehill offers nothing more than Stanzi.