ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs The case for Nick Foles (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=270213)

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9418857)
The 49ers traded a 2nd and a 4th for Steve Young back in the day.

I don't agree that if we give up a 3rd round pick he's automatically our starter.

That high 2nd, maybe. But not the third.

Irrelevant. Free agency wasn't even invented yet.

ModSocks 02-20-2013 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418842)
So maybe we're looking at the start of a new trend...

Exactly.

Especially considering the success that young QB's have had in recent years. Couple that with the increased reliance on good QB play, the restructuring of the CBA which allows teams to take QB's early and not have to pay them enormous sums, and all of a sudden you have teams attempting to stock pile talent at the position.

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418872)
I like the idea of not just adding one guy and saying we've "addressed" the position.

I like signing a vet FA, AND drafting the best QB available, and if the damned world league wouldn't have gone tits up I'd look there as well.

The Niners didn't quit looking for QB's because they had Montana. Packers kept drafting and adding guys behind good QB's.

You should be looking to improve your starter or depth every single year at that position...

The reality of the modern NFL is such that if you give up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round pick for a guy, he's going to be "the man".

This isn't 1990.

Rausch 02-20-2013 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 9418875)
Exactly.

Especially considering the success that young QB's have had in recent years. Couple that with the increased reliance on good QB play, the restructuring of the CBA which allows teams to take QB's early and not have to pay them enormous sums, and all of a sudden you have teams attempting to stock pile talent at the position.

And do it much earlier in the draft than before...

Deberg_1990 02-20-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9418857)
The 49ers traded a 2nd and a 4th for Steve Young back in the day.

Yea, he was a #1 pick in the USFL and NFL, and had played quite a few games in both leagues by the time they traded for him. ALot larger sample size and upside than Foles.

ModSocks 02-20-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418878)
The reality of the modern NFL is such that if you give up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round pick for a guy, he's going to be "the man".

This isn't 1990.

I think that would apply to 1st and 2nd rounders, sure...but not 3rd's....especially when you have two to spare.

We could have Geno Smith and Nick Foles and STILL have a full slate of picks 2-7.

DJ's left nut 02-20-2013 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418872)
I like the idea of not just adding one guy and saying we've "addressed" the position.

I like signing a vet FA, AND drafting the best QB available, and if the damned world league wouldn't have gone tits up I'd look there as well.

The Niners didn't quit looking for QB's because they had Montana. Packers kept drafting and adding guys behind good QB's.

You should be looking to improve your starter or depth every single year at that position...

I agree, but not all at once.

Sure, grab one this year and dedicate another good pick to the position in 2014. But I'm not going to go balls to the walls this season. You don't need to stock your entire QB roster in one off-season, especially if you're looking to build a 'pipeline'.

We're just trying to do too much in one bite. I think this is the year that you get your QBOTF and find a competent veteran to either transition into the kid or just as veteran backup. Next year you keep your eyes open for another value QB in the 2nd or 3rd round and as the years go you continue to try to bring guys in and create depth at the position.

But it's not like the Packers were throwing picks at QB once Rodgers stuck. When you have a great young QB, take another QB if he slides, but it's a little nutty to continue to force the issue at the position.

Dave Lane 02-20-2013 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418766)
Why would you ever trade a potential #2 for a guy you expect to be a backup?

If he's a backup its a next years 3. If Geno can;t beat him out and he wins a playoff game it becomes a 2. Not going to happen.

Rausch 02-20-2013 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418878)
The reality of the modern NFL is such that if you give up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round pick for a guy, he's going to be "the man".

This isn't 1990.

Didn't the Skins give up a 3rd for a QB right after taking RGIII?

The Lambs traded for TrINT but ended up with Warner.

We planned on Girlbac but ended up with Gannon. Or at least should have.

You might plan on one thing but you want as many options as possible at that position...

Hammock Parties 02-20-2013 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418874)
Irrelevant. Free agency wasn't even invented yet.

ROFL

Every time I try to find a silver lining it gets squashed.

OK, **** Nick Foles. INDEFENSIBLE.

Molitoth 02-20-2013 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418591)
I would MUCH rather have Foles than Alex Smith.

Foles is essentially a rookie in terms of development/upside, but has at least some game experience.

Alex Smith is what he is. Some think that's good enough, I don't.

Part of the reason I want to draft Geno or Tyler Wilson is because I think they have high upside and lots of room to grow.

To that end, Foles is much more like THEM than he is like Alex Smith.

This.

As much as I want Geno Smith, I just don't think it's going to happen.
If Foles is the QB in KC next year, I will give him a chance. (although If they spend a 3rd round pick or higher then I will be pissed.)

If Alex Smith or Matt Cassel is on this roster, I will not give a minor amount of crap about this franchise until they are ousted.

Mr_Tomahawk 02-20-2013 11:38 AM

A guy starts 6 games in the NFL and is already considered damaged goods and a retread...

Nice.

Canofbier 02-20-2013 11:39 AM

I'd be entirely happy with this if we give them our Comp 3rd or later for him. I'd feel a bit uneasy about 3.1, and I'd be queasy if we gave them 2.2.

B14ckmon 02-20-2013 11:40 AM

Watch the Chief's pass on Foles, only to have him become twice the QB Geno ever is. You'd see some REAL fires in Kansas city.

DJ's left nut 02-20-2013 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canofbier (Post 9418897)
I'd be entirely happy with this if we give them our Comp 3rd or later for him. I'd feel a bit uneasy about 3.1, and I'd be queasy if we gave them 2.2.

Can't trade a comp pick.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.