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...

[duncan_idaho]

I also think too many are quick to dismiss Geno thread as drafturbators that are obsessed with drafting a QB and have been for years.

I'm certainly not in that category. I'm not a "QB or bust" guy, but I'm most certainly a Geno guy.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Sorter

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

Dunno. Maybe.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.

Kirk Cousins is a top-end game manager. Tannehill at least had near-elite athleticism and a lack of experience coming out. You can't even see Tannehill's ceiling standing on Kirk Cousin's...

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

Probably didn't word my response right.

I absolutely agree with you.

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by O.city

I guess.



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

True but I have always thought that a lot of the QBs that bust have as much to do with coaching as it did the talent that the player has as well as the talent around them.

[Detoxing]

Originally Posted by O.city

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.

This.

I can't remember the last time someone said, "Man, if we DONT take that DT, it will set our franchise back for years", or "man, see that LT right there, if we don't take him this year, we blew our opportunity to land a potentially great one".

How often do you regret not taking a LT vs how often you regret not taking a QB?

The QB is worth the risk, even if he does grade out lower than the DT, because the reward is far higher.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

True but I have always thought that a lot of the QBs that bust have as much to do with coaching as it did the talent that the player has as well as the talent around them.

It's gotta match up everywhere. Coaching, the QB, the other players etc.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

This.

I can't remember the last time someone said, "Man, if we DONT take that DT, it will set our franchise back for years", or "man, see that LT right there, if we don't take him this year, we blew our opportunity to land a potentially great one".

How often do you regret not taking a LT vs how often you regret not taking a QB?

The QB is worth the risk, even if he does grade out lower than the DT, because the reward is far higher.

Well, thats the way we fans view it, I doubt the GM and HC do.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by O.city

Dunno. Maybe.

They'd think long and hard about it IMO.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

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?

First off, I don't speak for this fan base.

Secondly, I was a proponent of Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez, all because I DID see them play. I didn't watch Jimmy Clausen but somehow got slightly sucked onto the Clausen bandwagon, probably because I wanted to get ride of Cassel, who I thought sucked and wanted no part of from the beginning.

Never once have I stated that if the Chiefs identify who they believe would be their Franchise QB, that they should not take him. Not once.

But there's a crazy-ass fervor going around on this forum where people think the Chiefs should take a Smith at #1 overall, regardless of the fact that he hasn't been evaluated at the Combines, there's no consensus "Best" QB at this point and even if the QB grades out 10 points less than the highest rated player OR if he's rated similarly to the other "Top Prospects" (to which I say loosely).

It's as if people have ****ing lost their minds with this "Geno Smith! Geno Smith! Geno Smith!!!1111" nonsense before the guy has even been professionally evaluated.

[Chief Roundup]

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.

Don't forget the Steelers either. Their backups are in bad. Roethlisberger is not getting any younger.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Sorter

They'd think long and hard about it IMO.

I dunno about Barkley, seems his upside IS Schaub.


Bray would be intriguing for them.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Kirk Cousins is a top-end game manager. Tannehill at least had near-elite athleticism and a lack of experience coming out. You can't even see Tannehill's ceiling standing on Kirk Cousin's...

Well, I never stated that Tannehill shouldn't have been a first rounder. As a matter of fact, I hoped that ***** would make a move for him.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

First off, I don't speak for this fan base.

Secondly, I was a proponent of Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez, all because I DID see them play. I didn't watch Jimmy Clausen but somehow got slightly sucked onto the Clausen bandwagon, probably because I wanted to get ride of Cassel, who I thought sucked and wanted no part of from the beginning.

Never once have I stated that if the Chiefs identify who they believe would be their Franchise QB, that they should not take him. Not once.

But there's a crazy-ass fervor going around on this forum where people think the Chiefs should take a Smith at #1 overall, regardless of the fact that he hasn't been evaluated at the Combines, there's no consensus "Best" QB at this point and even if the QB grades out 10 points less than the highest rated player OR if he's rated similarly to the other "Top Prospects" (to which I say loosely).

It's as if people have ****ing lost their minds with this "Geno Smith! Geno Smith! Geno Smith!!!1111" nonsense before the guy has even been professionally evaluated.

It's kind of at the point around here of "Do you want Geno? NO, **** you true fan, you're scared you don't want us to win".

[jd1020]

Over/Under on Geno actually throwing at the combine?