I'm now more sure than ever that Geno's going #1 overall.

[Direckshun]

From the free agency megathread:

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora 28s

The Raiders are signing QB Seneca Wallace after working him out, Tyler Thigpen and perhaps others

The Raiders are signing up so many QBs that it is now virtually impossible they would take Geno Smith, even if he was available at #3 overall.

And they'd be theoretically passing on him for Seneca Wallace, Terrell (sp?) Pryor and maybe even Tyler ****ing Thigpen.

What's far more likely, is what some of us already suspect: they're not passing on him at all.

Like all of the QB-specific movement that immediately pre-dated the Geno visit in KC, I think the worst kept secret behind the closed doors of GM offices across the league is that Geno Smith is officially off the board at #1 overall.

I personally think it is down to the Eagles and the Jaguars. The Eagles want Geno as a developmental guy behind Vick, and the Jags, who are largely believed to like Geno, don't want to get jumped, a la Browns with Trent Richardson last year.

And then there's the least likely option, but one I think is still somehow alive: that the Chiefs actually think Geno fits what they're trying to do, and can be special, and that they will take Geno #1 overall if the compensation they are offered for trading down isn't sexy enough.

I may have my head up my ass, as I so often do. But I think the reasonable assumption to make from here on out that Geno Smith is known league-wide to be the first overall pick. The league almost certainly knows who the players for that pick are. And I'm willing to bet the league almost certainly assumes the Chiefs are not in the running for Geno. There has been absolutely no smoke for that particular fire to be real.

[Exoter175]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

They haven't passed up every draft pick and walked away, either. Would you recommend that just because it's change? Of course not.

This post made my day, because he really hits on a point most Chiefs fans are too drowned in koolaid to understand.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Well he's already made one QB look amazing with his YAC and rushing yards.

He can do that with any QB in the NFL, too.

And the troll cast out his line.....

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You take him if you think he's your guy. You don't take him if you don't. You don't just take the guy in order to say you took a QB. Honestly, I don't understand why that seems to be such a controversial approach around here.

Because we passed on guys like Rodgers, Flacco, Kaepernick, Wilson, Dalton and Brees because "they weren't good enough"

At some point, the excuse makes the regime seem like a bunch of pussies that are scared to take a chance in a league that rewards teams that take risks.

It's sad that this fanbase drools over players that weren't good enough for other teams, but deem every quarterback in the draft "not good enough"

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

They haven't passed up every draft pick and walked away, either. Would you recommend that just because it's change? Of course not.

False equivalency.

And it's just plain silly how you're STILL playing up this Tom Brady shit as anything else but blind luck.

Guess what? The Rams had to sign Kurt Warner and put faith in him as the back up to Trent Green. Are you going to say that's luck, but Tom Brady isn't?

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Exoter175

This post made my day, because he really hits on a point most Chiefs fans are too drowned in koolaid to understand.

Oh. NOOOOOWWW I remember why I called you illogical.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

And the troll cast out his line.....

That post right there earns him at least a douche nomination...wow

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by SNR

False equivalency.

It's not a false equivalency at all, and you're smart enough to know that.

Originally Posted by SNR

And it's just plain silly how you're STILL playing up this Tom Brady shit as anything else but blind luck.

I'm not playing anything up. I'm responding to some really stupid posts by people by giving what should be obvious answers.

Originally Posted by SNR

Guess what? The Rams had to sign Kurt Warner and put faith in him as the back up to Trent Green. Are you going to say that's luck, but Tom Brady isn't?

Why would I say that was luck for the Rams? Warner earned his spot. He wasn't just randomly picked out of a lineup.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by PGM

That post right there earns him at least a douche nomination...wow

That's the tip of the iceberg for him, but I just figured he would just a nomination as a badge of honor.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Because we passed on guys like Rodgers, Flacco, Kaepernick, Wilson, Dalton and Brees because "they weren't good enough"

At some point, the excuse makes the regime seem like a bunch of pussies that are scared to take a chance in a league that rewards teams that take risks.

It's sad that this fanbase drools over players that weren't good enough for other teams, but deem every quarterback in the draft "not good enough"

Kaepernick, Wilson, Dalton and Brees were all taken after the first round. Rodgers was taken 24th in the same draft where Alex Smith went #1 overall, and Flacco was taken at 18, well behind Matt Ryan.

[Exoter175]

Originally Posted by SNR

Oh. NOOOOOWWW I remember why I called you illogical.

How is that illogical? He makes a good point.

So many people are over here saying we HAVE to select a QB with our pick, acting like we've tossed every pick in every draft away.

The reality of it is, we've built some pretty damned good teams passing on "sure thing" QB's that didn't turn out to be a "sure thing", and we've also passed on guys who became great talents. But what irks me, is people don't understand that we didn't pass on them because they weren't good enough, we passed on them because at that time, we didn't need them in their raw form, and we had no concrete indication that they'd ever become "what they are".

The thing is, when you have a franchise QB, or you think you do, you generally don't draft QB's inside of the fourth round unless either A. he's a highly talented Project QB, or because you're ready to start grooming his heir.

So far, our Front Office, Coaching Staff, and Owners have thought every year that we had our guy with Cassel, and with Green, and so forth, but the reality is, we've just had re-tread QB's who were good enough to make us forget about setting up a franchise guy for the future, but not good enough to keep us competitive for year after year.

[RealSNR]

I really have to explain this to you?

Team X has a starting QB still in his prime with a Super Bowl appearance to his name. The team is consistently putting up winning seasons and playoff appearances. In one draft, they are given a compensatory selection, with which they see this QB prospect that they kinda like. They say, "Why not? Never hurts to draft a QB, and this guy looks pretty good for a 6th rounder." That pick ends up winning them three Super Bowls. His name gets mentioned in conversations about the greatest QB to ever play the game.

And you say there's no luck involved.


...Ooooooooookay

[Exoter175]

Originally Posted by SNR

I really have to explain this to you?

Team X has a starting QB still in his prime with a Super Bowl appearance to his name. The team is consistently putting up winning seasons and playoff appearances. In one draft, they are given a compensatory selection, with which they see this QB prospect that they kinda like. They say, "Why not? Never hurts to draft a QB, and this guy looks pretty good for a 6th rounder." That pick ends up winning them three Super Bowls. His name gets mentioned in conversations about the greatest QB to ever play the game.

And you say there's no luck involved.


...Ooooooooookay

Now I know you're not talking to me, you should use Quotes more often .

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by SNR

I really have to explain this to you?

Team X has a starting QB still in his prime with a Super Bowl appearance to his name. The team is consistently putting up winning seasons and playoff appearances. In one draft, they are given a compensatory selection, with which they see this QB prospect that they kinda like. They say, "Why not? Never hurts to draft a QB, and this guy looks pretty good for a 6th rounder." That pick ends up winning them three Super Bowls. His name gets mentioned in conversations about the greatest QB to ever play the game.

And you say there's no luck involved.


...Ooooooooookay

Where did I say there was no luck involved? At some level, every pick is lucky. The Colts are lucky they drafted #1 in the years of Manning and Luck. The Chiefs aren't lucky in that way.

What I said was that saying they were lucky is stupid, specifically because

Every pick in the draft is an educated guess, and every pick except #1 overall is a product of what teams in front do with their picks.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Exoter175

How is that illogical? He makes a good point.

So many people are over here saying we HAVE to select a QB with our pick, acting like we've tossed every pick in every draft away.

The reality of it is, we've built some pretty damned good teams passing on "sure thing" QB's that didn't turn out to be a "sure thing", and we've also passed on guys who became great talents. But what irks me, is people don't understand that we didn't pass on them because they weren't good enough, we passed on them because at that time, we didn't need them in their raw form, and we had no concrete indication that they'd ever become "what they are".

The thing is, when you have a franchise QB, or you think you do, you generally don't draft QB's inside of the fourth round unless either A. he's a highly talented Project QB, or because you're ready to start grooming his heir.

So far, our Front Office, Coaching Staff, and Owners have thought every year that we had our guy with Cassel, and with Green, and so forth, but the reality is, we've just had re-tread QB's who were good enough to make us forget about setting up a franchise guy for the future, but not good enough to keep us competitive for year after year.

It's illogical because it spits in the face of the fact that great QBs make up such a ****ing huge portion of the Super Bowl Winning probability pie.

The reason why 30 years of failure/30 years of no 1st round QB works is because the first round TENDS TO BE where these guys are to be found. At the very least, drafting a QB in the first round shows that the team is very conscious of how important the QB position is.

If there were the same success rate for teams that vacate all of their draft picks and then win the Super Bowl, MAYBE you'd have an argument.

Until we see some data on that, then yes, it absolutely is a false equivalence.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by SNR

It's illogical because it spits in the face of the fact that great QBs make up such a ****ing huge portion of the Super Bowl Winning probability pie.

The reason why 30 years of failure/30 years of no 1st round QB works is because the first round TENDS TO BE where these guys are to be found. At the very least, drafting a QB in the first round shows that the team is very conscious of how important the QB position is.

If there were the same success rate for teams that vacate all of their draft picks and then win the Super Bowl, MAYBE you'd have an argument.

Until we see some data on that, then yes, it absolutely is a false equivalence.

It's not a false equivalence and, again, you're smart enough to know that. You are also smart enough to know that you find SB winning QBs outside the first round just about as often as you find them inside the first round. The data backs that up.

If it was all about being taken #1, or even taken in the first round, Alex Smith would still be in SF.