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 the Talking Can

i don't give a **** which QB you don't want to draft...

i just pointed out that this: "Once coaches and GM's are routinely fired for reaching and over-drafting quarterbacks, the madness will end"

is premised on the faulty logic that there is something riskier about drafting a QB than say a LT...and it isn't true

it is just assumed to be true because the operative assumption about QB's has been - forever - that they're 'risky'

not drafting a QB in the name of value, or risk, or whatever is not an inherently smart, high-minded, choice....it's just a choice, and one that is every bit as likely to lead to failure as drafting a QB would...

but this fallacy persists...mostly because people think they're being reasonable espousing it...vesus those "crazy, obsessed" people who want a QB

I think you're ****ing crazy.

Gene Smith was fired. Mike Reindeldt was fired. Why? Overdrafting QB's that didn't pan out.

If that trend continues, GM's and coaches will be far more gunshy about taking a prospect in the first round that at any other time in NFL history, would have been rated as a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th rounder.

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Opinions are always subject to change.

Yeah but the way those opinions have been stated and defended will not be forgotten.

[whoman69]

I think it all comes down to this. The player the Chiefs need the most is Geno Smith. Where can the Chiefs obtain him? Only in the first round. I don't believe that Geno will fall out of the top 5. There are potentially five teams in the top ten that could possibly draft him. Is he the best player out there? In a way he is. He is the best player at the most important position on the field.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think you're ****ing crazy.

Gene Smith was fired. Mike Reindeldt was fired. Why? Overdrafting QB's that didn't pan out.

If that trend continues, GM's and coaches will be far more gunshy about taking a prospect in the first round that at any other time in NFL history, would have been rated as a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th rounder.

Scott ***** was fired, too. Because he didn't draft a QB at all.

There's just as many examples against your argument as there are for it.

Furthermore, the ONLY guys in the NFL that last more than 10 years are the guys that take the QB and get it right.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by whoman69

I think it all comes down to this. The player the Chiefs need the most is Geno Smith. Where can the Chiefs obtain him? Only in the first round. I don't believe that Geno will fall out of the top 5. There are potentially five teams in the top ten that could possibly draft him. Is he the best player out there? In a way he is. He is the best player at the most important position on the field.

Maybe. I would say that the most important player is the right quarterback. A lot of us believe that is Geno Smith.

But I am not so in love with the guy that I will be heartbroken if we trade down, take someone else, sign a stop-gap veteran, and draft our QBOTF next year. We want our QB and we are all a little impatient, for good reason.

I think that Dorsey and Reid both know they need to draft a legit QB high. But if they don't want Geno, then don't draft him. If you are never going to love that QB, never going to get behind him, never give him the same coaching or attention you would a QB that you truly believe in, then you aren't doing the fanbase any favors by drafting him.

My deepest hope is that Reid and Dorsey fall in love with Geno and we take him number one. I actually prefer that to them getting Stanzi and saying "whoa this guy is amazing!" and he becomes our legit, elite QB. Why? I want the excitement of having that marquis player as a rookie - the guy all the pundits are talking about. And I don't want any tie to ***** on this team anymore.

Hopefully we get Geno. But if we end up with Alex Smith and an extra first rounder next year, honestly then, I'm not going to complain.

Because here's the truth: someone in this draft will be a multi-year probowler. To say that it absolutely is Geno, and to get your expectations up like that as a fan is just foolish.

Between Geno and the field, I will take the field. For that reason alone, the "Geno or bust!" mentality is stupid.

But! At the end of the day, you have to pick one guy vs. the field. I just hope they agree that guy is Geno.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by 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.

This. I'm not yelling "draft some QB, any QB!", I'm a Geno fan. If we pass on him, then we can wait till the 4th round or grab someone else's garbage for all I care.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think you're ****ing crazy.

Gene Smith was fired. Mike Reindeldt was fired. Why? Overdrafting QB's that didn't pan out.

If that trend continues, GM's and coaches will be far more gunshy about taking a prospect in the first round that at any other time in NFL history, would have been rated as a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th rounder.

They took a swing, and missed. If you don't even try, you'll be fired.

[SNR]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think you're ****ing crazy.

Gene Smith was fired. Mike Reindeldt was fired. Why? Overdrafting QB's that didn't pan out.

If that trend continues, GM's and coaches will be far more gunshy about taking a prospect in the first round that at any other time in NFL history, would have been rated as a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th rounder.

Those guys were fired because they were terrible GMs. Who are the marquee players on the Jaguars acquired by Gene Smith? One or two offensive linemen? MJD? Did he even draft MJD?

Gabbert wasn't the savior he needed. Gabbert needed some help around him like Matt Ryan got. No help came, so Gabbert sucked, which made the talentless team around him suck even more.

Those coaches and GMs deserve to get fired because they're awful at their jobs. Not because they took a risk on a QB.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Scott ***** was fired, too. Because he didn't draft a QB at all.

There's just as many examples against your argument as there are for it.

Furthermore, the ONLY guys in the NFL that last more than 10 years are the guys that take the QB and get it right.

***** was fired because he traded for a QB that was a complete failure.

If he had drafted Sanchez, it appears he would have suffered the same fate, especially when coupled with his other draft blunders.

If ***** had hit on the Cassel trade and the Chiefs had two or more playoff appearances, he'd still be the GM today.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by alnorth

They took a swing, and missed. If you don't even try, you'll be fired.

I don't buy that.

Those were desperation moves that didn't need to be made.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think you're ****ing crazy.

Gene Smith was fired. Mike Reindeldt was fired. Why? Overdrafting QB's that didn't pan out.

If that trend continues, GM's and coaches will be far more gunshy about taking a prospect in the first round that at any other time in NFL history, would have been rated as a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th rounder.

so why have Chiefs coaches been fired for decades?

it simply doesn't hold up to any analysis...coaches are fired for losing...period

there are a hundred ways to lose...drafting a QB is no more risky than any other position, but it offers a reward that no other position offers...

there is no risk...well there is, but the risk is not drafting a QB

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by SNR

Those coaches and GMs deserve to get fired because they're awful at their jobs. Not because they took a risk on a QB.

So, you're saying that if Locker and Gabbert were successful QB's, both men would have been fired anyway?

I'm not buying that.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Scott ***** was fired, too. Because he didn't draft a QB at all.

There's just as many examples against your argument as there are for it.

Furthermore, the ONLY guys in the NFL that last more than 10 years are the guys that take the QB and get it right.

yup

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I don't buy that.

Those were desperation moves that didn't need to be made.

Drafting Gabbert wasn't desperation. Playing him in year one was.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

there are a hundred ways to lose...drafting a QB is no more risky than any other position, but it offers a reward that no other position offers...

Right.