3 NFL draft scenarios

[AustinChief]

Which of the following three (all unlikely) scenarios would you prefer... if you HAD to pick one of them.

#1 Chiefs trade 2012 1st and 2nd picks and 2013 1st and 2nd to move up enough spots to grab RGIII

#2 Matt Kalil somehow slides to the Chiefs at the #10 spot

#3 Chiefs take Trent Richardson at #10

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by durtyrute

He made some plays, but he made a lot more mistakes I know. I'm saying most rookies will do the same thing.

A rookie QB with actual talent would completely outclass Palko. Fans would have a lot more patience.

[durtyrute]

Originally Posted by Micjones

That might happen. We may be able to trade back to, say, 14 and take him.

I'm for that. I don't follow college that closely, but I'd rather trade back, get more picks and take the 5th best qb than trade up, give up the ****ing farm, and take the second best.

[durtyrute]

Originally Posted by Omega

A rookie QB with actual talent would completely outclass Palko. Fans would have a lot more patience.

You're right, and I hope so.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by durtyrute

I'm not a Palko lover or anything. I'm just saying that I don't think the fans have the patience for a rookie qb. Not every rookie will have an NFL skillset. Not every first round rookie will have said skill set either.

I can't think of one single QB, who'll be drafted in Round 1, that has an arm like Tyler Palko.

It could take a minute for said rook to develop and based on what I saw from folks on here when Palko was playing, people don't seem willing to wait for the development. If Stanzi came in and played like Palko, do you think people would want him back next year?

Are you really a Palko apologist or are you merely trying to make the point that this fanbase isn't as patient as it needs to be with a young QB?

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

1) Then you don't because
2) It isn't

What about giving up 12 1sts and 16 2nds for RGIII?

If you say no, then we've established that there is some limit on what people would trade up for to get a 1st round QB. The question is merely where the limit is.

And my take is that rather than pay 2 1sts and 2 2nds, let's see who's available with our 1st as it stands. Looking at the ten years from 1997 through 2006 (throwing out the last five years since we don't know career arcs yet), here are the quarterbacks drafted in the first 9 picks:

Group 1

Vince Young
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Byron Leftwich
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Donovan McNabb
Akili Smith
Peyton Manning
Ryan Leaf


Here are the quarterbacks drafted in picks 10 through 19:

Group 2

Matt Leinert
Jay Cutler
Ben Roethlisberger
Kyle Boller
Chad Pennington
Daunte Culpepper
Cade McNown

Here are quarterbacks taken in picks 20 through 31 in that period:

Group 3

Jim Druckenmiller
Patrick Ramsey
Rex Grossman
J.P. Losman
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell

Here are quarterbacks taken in the 2nd round in that period:

Group 4

Jake Plummer
Charlie Batch
Shaun King
Drew Brees
Quincy Carter
Marques Tuiasasopo
Tarvaris Jackson

So would I rather have one pull on the slot machine from Group 1, or would I rather have one pull in Group 2, one in Group 3, and 2 in Group 4? We could probably do the math, but offhand it seems to me like I'd rather have more pulls on the slot machine, because I see some pretty good quarterbacks in that group and I have more tries to get them.

I don't know if there's a salary cap deal, but I think mathematically you'd be better off drafting QB after QB with all those picks until one of them works out. Not to mention the fact that if your first or second guy works out then you can redirect the later picks since they're not all happening this year.

So the bottom line is that turning down a trade of 2 1sts and 2 2nds isn't a statement that I don't want a franchise QB. It's a statement that there may be a better option for getting one. In this case it would be flooding your roster with QBs using those picks and hoping that one of them is the next Brees or Rodgers or Roethlisberger.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by Micjones

That might happen. We may be able to trade back to, say, 14 and take him.

Without the benefit of observing him in post season, I say that seems like a good move.

[durtyrute]

Originally Posted by Micjones

I can't think of one single QB, who'll be drafted in Round 1, that has an arm like Tyler Palko.



Are you really a Palko apologist or are you merely trying to make the point that this fanbase isn't as patient as it needs to be with a young QB?

The latter, I don't give two ****s about Palkisy. I'm just saying that it might take time for the qb to develop and I wonder if people have that kind of patience.

[durtyrute]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

What about giving up 12 1sts and 16 2nds for RGIII?

If you say no, then we've established that there is some limit on what people would trade up for to get a 1st round QB. The question is merely where the limit is.

And my take is that rather than pay 2 1sts and 2 2nds, let's see who's available with our 1st as it stands. Looking at the ten years from 1997 through 2006 (throwing out the last five years since we don't know career arcs yet), here are the quarterbacks drafted in the first 9 picks:

Group 1

Vince Young
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Byron Leftwich
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Donovan McNabb
Akili Smith
Peyton Manning
Ryan Leaf


Here are the quarterbacks drafted in picks 10 through 19:

Group 2

Matt Leinert
Jay Cutler
Ben Roethlisberger
Kyle Boller
Chad Pennington
Daunte Culpepper
Cade McNown

Here are quarterbacks taken in picks 20 through 31 in that period:

Group 3

Jim Druckenmiller
Patrick Ramsey
Rex Grossman
J.P. Losman
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell

Here are quarterbacks taken in the 2nd round in that period:

Group 4

Jake Plummer
Charlie Batch
Shaun King
Drew Brees
Quincy Carter
Marques Tuiasasopo
Tarvaris Jackson

So would I rather have one pull on the slot machine from Group 1, or would I rather have one pull in Group 2, one in Group 3, and 2 in Group 4? We could probably do the math, but offhand it seems to me like I'd rather have more pulls on the slot machine, because I see some pretty good quarterbacks in that group and I have more tries to get them.

I don't know if there's a salary cap deal, but I think mathematically you'd be better off drafting QB after QB with all those picks until one of them works out. Not to mention the fact that if your first or second guy works out then you can redirect the later picks since they're not all happening this year.

So the bottom line is that turning down a trade of 2 1sts and 2 2nds isn't a statement that I don't want a franchise QB. It's a statement that there may be a better option for getting one. In this case it would be flooding your roster with QBs using those picks and hoping that one of them is the next Brees or Rodgers or Roethlisberger.

Thank you for taking the time to put this together, hopefully more people will see it and realize that we don't need to give up our next three years first to get a qb that will be successful.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by durtyrute

The latter, I don't give two ****s about Palkisy. I'm just saying that it might take time for the qb to develop and I wonder if people have that kind of patience.

People had a lot of patience with Cassel, and he was playing like a rookie.

[Okie_Apparition]

The offense looked like a real offense with Palko at the helm
Cassel exposed all the offense's flaws & Palko just exposed his own flaws
Cassel made everything worse

[durtyrute]

Originally Posted by Omega

People had a lot of patience with Cassel, and he was playing like a rookie.

It seemed like some did and most didn't. People on here have hated Cassel since day one.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by durtyrute

The latter, I don't give two ****s about Palkisy. I'm just saying that it might take time for the qb to develop and I wonder if people have that kind of patience.

Did you just come to the Planet? Of course people won't have patience. That is especially true if they draft a QB the majority doesn't want like Jones. Jones will be declared a bust 10 seconds after he's drafted. RGIII will be declared a bust after KC's 2nd game. Tannehill, because of his lack of experience, will be declared a bust after game 6 when Orton/Cassel are still starting.

[Okie_Apparition]

LEt them eat Landry Jones

[durtyrute]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Did you just come to the Planet? Of course people won't have patience. That is especially true if they draft a QB the majority doesn't want like Jones. Jones will be declared a bust 10 seconds after he's drafted. RGIII will be declared a bust after KC's 2nd game. Tannehill, because of his lack of experience, will be declared a bust after game 6 when Orton/Cassel are still starting.

I know, it's crazy.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

What about giving up 12 1sts and 16 2nds for RGIII?

If you say no, then we've established that there is some limit on what people would trade up for to get a 1st round QB. The question is merely where the limit is.

And my take is that rather than pay 2 1sts and 2 2nds, let's see who's available with our 1st as it stands. Looking at the ten years from 1997 through 2006 (throwing out the last five years since we don't know career arcs yet), here are the quarterbacks drafted in the first 9 picks:

Group 1

Vince Young
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Byron Leftwich
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Donovan McNabb
Akili Smith
Peyton Manning
Ryan Leaf


Here are the quarterbacks drafted in picks 10 through 19:

Group 2

Matt Leinert
Jay Cutler
Ben Roethlisberger
Kyle Boller
Chad Pennington
Daunte Culpepper
Cade McNown

Here are quarterbacks taken in picks 20 through 31 in that period:

Group 3

Jim Druckenmiller
Patrick Ramsey
Rex Grossman
J.P. Losman
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell

Here are quarterbacks taken in the 2nd round in that period:

Group 4

Jake Plummer
Charlie Batch
Shaun King
Drew Brees
Quincy Carter
Marques Tuiasasopo
Tarvaris Jackson

So would I rather have one pull on the slot machine from Group 1, or would I rather have one pull in Group 2, one in Group 3, and 2 in Group 4? We could probably do the math, but offhand it seems to me like I'd rather have more pulls on the slot machine, because I see some pretty good quarterbacks in that group and I have more tries to get them.

I don't know if there's a salary cap deal, but I think mathematically you'd be better off drafting QB after QB with all those picks until one of them works out. Not to mention the fact that if your first or second guy works out then you can redirect the later picks since they're not all happening this year.

So the bottom line is that turning down a trade of 2 1sts and 2 2nds isn't a statement that I don't want a franchise QB. It's a statement that there may be a better option for getting one. In this case it would be flooding your roster with QBs using those picks and hoping that one of them is the next Brees or Rodgers or Roethlisberger.

The thing is.....is no franchise is going to go out and draft a QB in the 1st round one year....and then go out and use another 1st round and 2nd round pick on QBs the following year.