NFL Draft Mother**** you Scott Pioli - Page 49

'Hamas' Jenkins · 12-18-2009, 05:19 PM

I hated Josh Freeman and still do.

That said, even a pick that dumb would have been better than taking Jackson. Hell, the only pick that's even in the same ballpark of dumbassery is the Raiders' selection of DHB, and even then they only had to pay him about half of what we paid Jackson, and he might still be a good WR once he gets real QB play.

CaliforniaChief · 12-18-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I hated Josh Freeman and still do.

That said, even a pick that dumb would have been better than taking Jackson. Hell, the only pick that's even in the same ballpark of dumbassery is the Raiders' selection of DHB, and even then they only had to pay him about half of what we paid Jackson, and he might still be a good WR once he gets real QB play.

Not unless they surgically insert magnets inside his iron clad hands.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-18-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

"Doesn't make a damn whether you think a QB will bust or not."" YOU TAKE HIM"!

What?

Are you smokin' crack again?

beach tribe · 12-18-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

What?

Are you smokin' crack again?

Tyson Jackson will probably be a ten year starter for us, and your lover Sanchez is gonna be a back up for the Raiders in 5 years.

**BossChief** · 12-18-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

haha thats true. To be fair one of the guys I wanted was Bj Raji which would have been a better pick than Tyson Jackson.

too soon to say this. The knock on Raji wasnt his play, it was his intelligence level. He could be dumb enough to be out of the league in time. He missed a whole college year because he was dumb as ****! Jackson had no real knocks on him except that he didnt have a lot of pass rush moves to succeed as a 4-3 de.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Uh, not me.

A QB is WAY more valuable than a ****ing 5-tech.

I agree for a qb that has a good chance at making it. I dont see that in Freeman, in that case you have to take a player that you feel will help the most in the long term.

I have about 5% faith that Mr Freeman will be anything more than a career backup qb. Kyle Boller is the closest comparison I can make for why. And in many respects.

As I said before, I wanted to hold off on drafting a qb till 2010 and for us to shore up some other needs first.

The list of underclassmen qbs with such a low amount of experience is small and very very unimpressive.

FA
Jeff Garcia
Kendall Simmons

Draft
Orakpo
Mauluaga
ol ( I am actually happy with the Magee pick, as he could be a player for us.)
ol/bpa
ol/bpa

Draft Bradford in 2010.

that was basically my plan. Not the complete one, as that would take more time to post and I dont want to go back through my old posts to fill in the rest at this point.

It probably would have failed too, but at least we would have had a much improved defense and could protect a qb once we got him...

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-18-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Tyson Jackson will probably be a ten year starter for us, and your lover Sanchez is gonna be a back up for the Raiders in 5 years.

And as usual, your grasp of reality is very thin.

beach tribe · 12-18-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

And as usual, your grasp of reality is very thin.

We'll see.

chiefzilla1501 · 12-18-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Looks to me as if Wallace Gilberry was a very viable alternative, especially considering he was ALREADY ON THE ROSTER. Alex Magee in the third is a viable alternative as well.

JFC. Urine idiot.

You're not reading correctly. I said that at #3, instead of taking Tyson Jackson, what was the alternative? Who would you have taken? Because the majority of people have recommended players that were taking much deeper into the first round.

And give me a ****ing break. Wallace Gilberry is a good alternative to Jackson? I have no idea who will be better between Jackson and Magee, but you're also suggesting the Chiefs should have passed on Jackson in favor of a rawer prospect who may or may not have been available in the third round? You list Gilberry and Magee as alternatives, and yet call me an idiot. Interesting.

Quote:

Again, more foolishness.

Why you expected Sanchez to be a superior NFL QB in his first season is beyond me and all on you. He has the tools, he just needs the experience. He'll be a much better QB in 2010 and beyond.

Just as the same as you being convinced that Jackson will never make any kind of an impact because of how he's played as a rookie.

**BossChief** · 12-18-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No offense but I really don't care what you "think".

A first round QB has FAR more value than a 5-tech defensive end. Period.

That's all one needs to know.

If either player were to be traded tomorrow, who do you think would fetch a higher draft choice?

Quite honestly, I don't think they saw shit. The guy was only Second-Team All-America last season, yet he went #3 overall. I think Pioli knows only ONE WAY to build a football team and he's following that blueprint.

Regardless of what was already in place in Kansas City.

If you dont care what I think, why respond to my post?

Are you saying that if we could have drafted Kyle Boller or Ty Warren at 3, you would have taken Boller?

If so, I dont get it.

"thats all one needs to know"

Who cares if he was first or second team All American? He is a specialty player for the most part. He is a rare type of player to find and they dont grow on trees, players like him are some of the hardest to find and with about half the league going to 3-4 defenses, they will be valued higher and higher through the years. The more the 3-4 becomes popular, the more you will see teams taking 5-tecs with high picks because of how slim the pickings usually are for the position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

We'll see.

I doubt very highly that MS busts that bad.

L.A. Chieffan · 12-18-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

I didnt like the pick at 3, but this statement is dead wrong.

Days after the draft, Singletary was the guest on NFLN and he said he had TJ pegged for their pick. He also said that the Crabtree pick was the GMs call and that he wanted a defensive player.

The Browns came out and said he would have been their pick.

TJ was a reach, but not as big of one as some make it out to be. NO WAY he would have made it to 17. NONE.

I believe my preference was Orakpo...Crabtree...Monroe...Raji...Mauluaga in that order. The TJ pick totally blindsided me, but to be honest I wasnt thrilled or disapointed in it because it seems he has the mentality and work ethic to become a very very good player and the fact that his presence should bolster the attitude of Dorsey added some increased value to the pick.

The 09 draft was an anomaly because about every top prospect had big question marks. One only has to look at the vast list of underclassmen qbs to be taken in the first round to see that Mark Sanchez was a huge risk pick...add in the fact that he only started 15 college games and that put him in a small class (him and Akili Smith) as underclassmen qbs with only one year of experience. The chance of the pick fruiting a all pro calibur qb was slim in my opinion.

time will tell who was right and who was wrong in this debate, it is far from finished.

we could have traded out of 3 and got way more value than just jackson at three thats my point

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-18-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

You're not reading correctly. I said that at #3, instead of taking Tyson Jackson, what was the alternative? Who would you have taken? Because the majority of people have recommended players that were taking much deeper into the first round.

Oher, Harvin, Moreno, Davis, Crabtree - hell even Cushing would have been better choices than Tyson Jackson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

And give me a ****ing break. Wallace Gilberry is a good alternative to Jackson? I have no idea who will be better between Jackson and Magee, but you're also suggesting the Chiefs should have passed on Jackson in favor of a rawer prospect who may or may not have been available in the third round? You list Gilberry and Magee as alternatives, and yet call me an idiot. Interesting.

It's not interesting. You're dumb. You clearly don't watch the games. Gilberry has better numbers and more sacks than Jackson.

Jackson is a TWO DOWN PLAYER.

Only YOU and Scott Pioli can justify taking a TWO DOWN PLAYER at #3 overall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Just as the same as you being convinced that Jackson will never make any kind of an impact because of how he's played as a rookie.

I hope you're smarter than this in real life, i.e. your job, your relationships, etc. because you don't understand ANYTHING about a 3-4 defense.

For the last time, a 3-4, 5 tech defensive end is NOT AN IMPACT POSITION.

Tyson Jackson could be the greatest 5 tech of all time (which he won't) and no one would even notice.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-18-2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

If you dont care what I think, why respond to my post?

Are you saying that if we could have drafted Kyle Boller or Ty Warren at 3, you would have taken Boller?

If so, I dont get it.

"thats all one needs to know"

Who cares if he was first or second team All American? He is a specialty player for the most part. He is a rare type of player to find and they dont grow on trees, players like him are some of the hardest to find and with about half the league going to 3-4 defenses, they will be valued higher and higher through the years. The more the 3-4 becomes popular, the more you will see teams taking 5-tecs with high picks because of how slim the pickings usually are for the position.

I doubt very highly that MS busts that bad.

First off, you're misconstruing what I said so I'll say it again:

A QB (you know, the guy that's most responsible for wins and losses on a football team?) is MORE VALUABLE than a 5-Tech, 3-4 defensive end.

Got it?

I'm not going to argue your "opinion" of Freeman vs. my "opinion" of Tyson Jackson.

The bottom line is that all things being equal, a QB is infinitely more valuable to ANY franchise than a 3-4, 5 tech DE.

Got it?

L.A. Chieffan · 12-18-2009, 05:53 PM

i dont buy the jackson to cleveland shit for a minute. youre telling me that it we didnt draft jackson that the browns wouldve drafted him at 5 instead?

Hammock Parties · 12-18-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Jackson is a TWO DOWN PLAYER.

I keep bringing this point up but nobody seems to care.

Jackson was drafted to be a three-down player, and early in the season, HE WAS. He was playing 3-tech on passing downs. Clearly, the Chiefs thought he was worth taking so high because they thought he could be a dominating inside pass rusher by moving inside in their nickel defense. They even put Glenn Dorsey ON THE BENCH because they thought Jackson could do a better job.

While this dispels the notion that Jackson was drafted to be only a two-down player, if actually works AGAINST the Chiefs in this case because Jackson's pass rush sucked so horribly early on they decided they'd put Dorsey back out there again.

But, for the true fans, I guess they can hope that next season Jackson will find a pass rush. At least that would somewhat justify his draft position. Better than being a two-down player, anyway.

**DaneMcCloud** · 12-18-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

I keep bringing this point up but nobody seems to care.

Jackson was drafted to be a three-down player, and early in the season, HE WAS. He was playing 3-tech on passing downs. Clearly, the Chiefs thought he was worth taking so high because they thought he could be a dominating inside pass rusher by moving inside in their nickel defense. They even put Glenn Dorsey ON THE BENCH because they thought Jackson could do a better job.

While this dispels the notion that Jackson was drafted to be only a two-down player, if actually works AGAINST the Chiefs in this case because Jackson's pass rush sucked so horribly early on they decided they'd put Dorsey back out there again.

But, for the true fans, I guess they can hope that next season Jackson will find a pass rush. At least that would somewhat justify his draft position. Better than being a two-down player, anyway.

Tyson Jackson, meet Aaron Curry.

I think the Seahawks would be MUCH better off with Maualuga, Matthews or Cushing.

04-25-2009, 02:27 PM
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $8009572	Mother you Scott Pioli Last edited by 'Hamas' Jenkins; 11-30-2022 at 10:33 PM..
Posts: 74,825

12-18-2009, 05:19 PM	#721
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $8009572	I hated Josh Freeman and still do. That said, even a pick that dumb would have been better than taking Jackson. Hell, the only pick that's even in the same ballpark of dumbassery is the Raiders' selection of DHB, and even then they only had to pay him about half of what we paid Jackson, and he might still be a good WR once he gets real QB play. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 74,825

12-18-2009, 05:53 PM	#733
L.A. Chieffan PLAY GOOD FOOTBALL Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: American Gardens Building Casino cash: $4088654	i dont buy the jackson to cleveland shit for a minute. youre telling me that it we didnt draft jackson that the browns wouldve drafted him at 5 instead?
Posts: 17,367