ChiefsPlanet - View Single Post - Non-QB Options at #1 Overall

KCFaninSEA · 12-31-2012, 09:42 PM

To not take a QB with the first pick is extremely risky. With that being said many posters here are also sick of the Chiefs being to "safe". So which is it? I am OK with Smith or Wilson. If the brass thinks one of them will be there at our 2nd pick I would be OK with taking a chance but only if the #1 is as much of a lock as can be possible to be a perennial pro bowler for 10 years. If they decide to do that get the best you can at what you need BUT HE BETTER BE REALLY GOOD for this risk. What we need other than QB is wr, CB, DT, safety and ilb. Get the best bang for the buck. But he better be great....... And we better get that QB.

12-31-2012, 09:42 PM	#22
KCFaninSEA Starter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Seattle, WA Casino cash: $10005813	To not take a QB with the first pick is extremely risky. With that being said many posters here are also sick of the Chiefs being to "safe". So which is it? I am OK with Smith or Wilson. If the brass thinks one of them will be there at our 2nd pick I would be OK with taking a chance but only if the #1 is as much of a lock as can be possible to be a perennial pro bowler for 10 years. If they decide to do that get the best you can at what you need BUT HE BETTER BE REALLY GOOD for this risk. What we need other than QB is wr, CB, DT, safety and ilb. Get the best bang for the buck. But he better be great....... And we better get that QB. __________________ Stop corporate Greed!!!!!
Posts: 346