If not #1, where?

[Micjones]

The draftniks keep saying that Geno Smith isn't worth the #1 pick.
None of them say he isn't the top QB in the class though.
If we don't take him at #1 how far is he realistically going to fall?

I see no scenario where he falls out of the Top 10.

So if he's the top QB in a weak class...
QB is our biggest need...
And he's gonna go Top 10 anyway...

Why not at #1?

Am I wrong to say he won't fall out of the Top 10?

Discuss...

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You disagree with the idea that people have latched onto Geno because they're desperate?

Are you in the business of reading other people's minds then?

I'm not saying that every person that's a Geno fan is desperate but I'd say the majority of them are bandwagoners, yes.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Geno Smith is a FAR better prospect than ANY of those three.

Well, I sure as hell hope so because those guys, at least to me, are typical third and fourth rounders.

Kirk Cousins was, IMO, a better prospect than both and he lasted until the 4th.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Once coaches and GM's are routinely fired for reaching and over-drafting quarterbacks, the madness will end.

I guess.



Still goes both ways though. Either get fired for drafting the wrong one, or get fired for not getting one.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by durtyrute

Do they not watch the games? Do they not see that stats? Didn't they sleep in the bed? Did they not feel the dents? That's from all this.......

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You disagree with the idea that people have latched onto Geno because they're desperate?

I certainly disagree with that.

I mean, yeah, I'm sure some have. Not everyone has the time or the desire to study college players. But I think most of the people talking about him in "the thread" are talking about him because they believe he's good, and not just because they want a QB.

Ditto for the Wilson thread.

There's some good QBs in this draft. Just like virtually every other year. I have no idea where the perception that there are not has come from, although I suspect it's because all of the top ones (including Barkley, too) all lost a number of games. And as we all know, losing games means you must not be any good. Since it's not like football's a team game.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by O.city

I'd rather us take a QB and him bust, than take a DL or OT and him be ok but really just meh.

It's a stupid way to think about it, and it's wrong, but damn it, you gotta try to get that guy or you can't win. So just take your top QB. If they draft Geno, or Wilson at 1 and he busts, fine.

It's evident that Dorsey and Reid will disagree. I don't think they take a QB at #1 overall unless they're certain he'll be a solid NFL QB.

If there's a bust factor, they'll pass. They've both already alluded to that publicly.

[duncan_idaho]

Kiper and McShay and a lot of the "experts" that are out there right now are guilty of the same sin: Underestimating how much positional value QBs have in today's NFL.

I just laugh when I see things projecting no more than 1-2 QBs taken in the first. That's just not going to happen, not with this many teams with great needs.

KC @ 1
Jax @2 (AND 33, for Chiefs' purposes)
Oakland @3
Philadelphia @4
Arizona @7
Buffalo @8
Jets @ 9

And that's just teams with "need." It doesn't take into account any teams with good but aging or declining QBs (New Orleans @15, San Diego @11, Denver @28) or that Baltimore might lose Flacco in FA and Houston might nab a young, high-upside guy to push Schaub.

To suggest that no Qbs are worth a first-round grade or that only 1-2 will go in the first round is just silly and disregards reality.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

It's evident that Dorsey and Reid will disagree. I don't think they take a QB at #1 overall unless they're certain he'll be a solid NFL QB.

If there's a bust factor, they'll pass. They've both already alluded to that publicly.

Oh, I'm positive they will.


I'm just saying form my perspective, a little part of me just wants to draft a Qb in the first round. If he busts, **** it, I've lived thru DL bust after DL bust. I'll deal with it.

Like I said, its a stupid way to look at it.

Also, there is gonna be a bust factor with whoever they pick.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Rambozo

We should start hearing some things soon. After the senior bowl, the picture normally gets a little more clear.

But since Smith and Barkley are not participating, the picture won't be much clearer.

[Detoxing]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think that we should all feel honored that without ANY Due Diligence on your part (Wonderlic, psychological testing, Pro Day workout, Combine work out) that YOU have decided that Geno Smith is unequivocally the best prospect in the 2013 draft.

Hell, the Chiefs should just close up shop. The pick is in!

WTF are you even talking about?

You just seem hell bent on trying to start shit with me, its kinda funny that for whatever reason you seem to have latched onto me and try to argue for the sake of arguing.

I asked a simple question. To identify the positive characteristics you look for in a QB. I don't know that Geno will be the guy, I do know that it needs to be a QB, because no other position on this team will improve it as much as good QB play will.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Once coaches and GM's are routinely fired for reaching and over-drafting quarterbacks, the madness will end.

coaches are fired for losing

coaches who pass on qbs are fired for losing...as any Chiefs fan should know...

did drafting Long or Joe Thomas save anyones job?

the idea that QBs are riskier than any other position is nonsense....

how can a fanbase that has never 'risked' drafting a QB be this afraid of the 'risk' of drafting a QB?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Kiper and McShay and a lot of the "experts" that are out there right now are guilty of the same sin: Underestimating how much positional value QBs have in today's NFL.

I just laugh when I see things projecting no more than 1-2 QBs taken in the first. That's just not going to happen, not with this many teams with great needs.

KC @ 1
Jax @2 (AND 33, for Chiefs' purposes)
Oakland @3
Philadelphia @4
Arizona @7
Buffalo @8
Jets @ 9

And that's just teams with "need." It doesn't take into account any teams with good but aging or declining QBs (New Orleans @15, San Diego @11, Denver @28) or that Baltimore might lose Flacco in FA and Houston might nab a young, high-upside guy to push Schaub.

To suggest that no Qbs are worth a first-round grade or that only 1-2 will go in the first round is just silly and disregards reality.

Thats one team I hadn't really thought of.


If one of these guys start falling, Houston might just say hell with it and take one ala Rodgers in GB.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

You're certainly welcome to disagree. Disagreeing doesn't make you stupid.

A concept RunKC hasn't figured out yet. Because, you know, he thinks that everybody who wants Geno is just an idiot who hasn't, like, watched him play 20+ games over three years, and read all kinds of commentary on him, and has been talking about him for months and even years. Nope. RunKC says the "NFL Scouts" he has imaginary conversations with tell him Geno Smith isn't a good QB, and anybody who disagrees is just dumb.

Well and see, that's the difference: I respect your opinion and Htismaque's (JFC, I hate spelling your user name, P!) and SNR's. You guys have done your homework, made a decision and are sticking to it.

Very few can say the same.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by O.city

Thats one team I hadn't really thought of.


If one of these guys start falling, Houston might just say hell with it and take one ala Rodgers in GB.

I wonder if they'd take Barkley if he fell that far.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

WTF are you even talking about?

You just seem hell bent on trying to start shit with me, its kinda funny that for whatever reason you seem to have latched onto me and try to argue for the sake of arguing.

I find it a little humorous...