Chiefs Albert/Joeckel perspective - Page 8

**cdcox** · 04-18-2013, 11:01 PM

How would you feel if the Chiefs had the #2 overall pick and packaged it and Albert for Joeckel? Because that's what the Chiefs are on the brink of doing.

#1 pick = 3000 points
#54 pick = 360 points

difference is 2640 points

#2 pick is worth 2600 points

Chiefs are going to invest 3000 - 360 = 2640 points to replace Albert with Joeckel. It could be a good deal for the Chiefs if 1) Albert is out of the league in two years, 2) Jockel is a HOFer and 3) the alternatives (like Geno) don't have very good careers.

duncan_idaho · 04-19-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Oh, so the Carl and Marty didn't attempt to get the Chiefs into the Elite category?

They tried, but they failed. Paterson focused heavily on never being a BAD team, on doing everything possible to avoid a season where the wheels really came off.

The main reason they failed is because they were content with bringing in a string of other teams' garbage at QB rather than truly trying to find a stud of their own, because they couldn't afford to wait for a young QB to develop.

We've seen what happens when you try to build with great defense and OL and homefield advantage, but mediocre at best at QB.

I'm done with that, as are many other Chiefs fans.

If they don't take a REAL stab at getting a QB who COULD be that guy in this draft, I'm probably checked out until they do. (Note: This doesn't mean taking the next limpDick Stanzi. Would require a 2nd round pick or a 3rd if QBs slip)

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

I'm projecting Alex Smith's chances of being the franchise guy this team has desperately needed since forever.

I think he's nothing more than a 2 year stop gap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

I think most Chiefs fans would agree about that when it comes to Alex Smith.

If by "Chiefs fans", you mean a very vocal minority on Chiefsplanet? Then yes.

If by "Chiefs fans" you're referring to the people of Kansas City and the fans that fill their stadium? I'd say you're dead wrong.

ChiefsCountry · 04-19-2013, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

So, what was their alternative? Kolb? Thigpen? Campbell?

It is absolutely imperative that they put a respectable team on the field in 2013, for many reasons. Do you really believe that any of the available QB's were capable of leading the team to a respectable record?

Kolb and Campbell could lead this to a .500 record and cost the team less in resources and payroll than Alex Smith, all while being shipped to the curb easier when our rookie is ready to go.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-19-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

So, what was their alternative? Kolb? Thigpen? Campbell?

It is absolutely imperative that they put a respectable team on the field in 2013, for many reasons. Do you really believe that any of the available QB's were capable of leading the team to a respectable record?

I don't see that it is imperative that they put a "respectable team on the field" in 2013. That's the kind of desperation move that had me equate them to JC Penney a few days ago. They inherited a situation that needed three years to build a truly competitive team. Rather than acknowledge that, they've sought out every band-aid imaginable to get the team ready this year.

As much as the fans may want it to happen, sometimes things just aren't ready the next year. The car needed a new paint job. They could have realized that it was going to take several coats to get it done, and along with that, more time; instead, they went to Maaco.

duncan_idaho · 04-19-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

So, what was their alternative? Kolb? Thigpen? Campbell?

It is absolutely imperative that they put a respectable team on the field in 2013, for many reasons. Do you really believe that any of the available QB's were capable of leading the team to a respectable record?

Their alternative was to take a young QB in this draft (in Round 1, or Round 2, or by using Round 2 to trade back into the latter stages of Round 1). Show the effort to develop their own.

There are many (myself included) who would support the team through an effort like that, even if it resulted in 2-14 this season while they got shellacked several times.

And if that young QB doesn't work out very well? Congrats, you're in place to take a stab at another next year.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

They tried, but they failed. Paterson focused heavily on never being a BAD team, on doing everything possible to avoid a season where the wheels really came off.

That's pure ****ing bullshit.

Carl Peterson drafted three Hall of Fame players, signed a HOFer in free agency and traded for another. He busted his ass to get a winner in KC his first decade.

They traded for an signed any QB they believed to be capable of beating John Elway and getting to the playoffs.

To pretend as if that didn't happen is just a bunch of ****ing garbage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

The main reason they failed is because they were content with bringing in a string of other teams' garbage at QB rather than truly trying to find a stud of their own, because they couldn't afford to wait for a young QB to develop.

So, who should they have drafted and developed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

We've seen what happens when you try to build with great defense and OL and homefield advantage, but mediocre at best at QB.

I'm done with that, as are many other Chiefs fans.

See ya!

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

If they don't take a REAL stab at getting a QB who COULD be that guy in this draft, I'm probably checked out until they do. (Note: This doesn't mean taking the next limpDick Stanzi. Would require a 2nd round pick or a 3rd if QBs slip)

Well, that's just so ****ing magnanimous of you. The Chiefs had "better draft a QB or I'm done!".

****in' pussy.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I don't see that it is imperative that they put a "respectable team on the field" in 2013.

Well, sorry Dude, I've talked to agents that have said that Chiefs were a ****ing joke in league circles. There was gross mismanagement and a murder/suicide in 2012. The fans revolted, banners were flown, the stadium was empty. Clark Hunt had to do whatever necessary to turn this franchise around immediately.

They were an embarrassment last year, period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

That's the kind of desperation move that had me equate them to JC Penney a few days ago. They inherited a situation that needed three years to build a truly competitive team. Rather than acknowledge that, they've sought out every band-aid imaginable to get the team ready this year.

And those "band-aids" you speak of will likely fill the stands, put the Chiefs in better standing with the league. The agents and players are also more inclined to want to play for a well run team and will at least visit (which is something that wasn't even happening under *****).

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

As much as the fans may want it to happen, sometimes things just aren't ready the next year. The car needed a new paint job. They could have realized that it was going to take several coats to get it done, and along with that, more time; instead, they went to Maaco.

It's better to go to Maaco and spiff the car up a bit than drive around a piece of shit. And after 2-14, 4-12, 2-14 and 7-9 seasons, the Chiefs were a piece of shit.

keg in kc · 04-19-2013, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Kolb and Campbell could lead this to a .500 record and cost the team less in resources and payroll than Alex Smith, all while being shipped to the curb easier when our rookie is ready to go.

This franchise is never going to draft a rookie, outside of more longshot/never-will Croyle's and Stanzi's. This year's shoulda been a free agent castoff quarterback will be replaced in time by the next shoulda been a free agent castoff.

**RealSNR** · 04-19-2013, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think he's nothing more than a 2 year stop gap.

I really hope so. And that's why I really wanted Geno Smith THIS year. Because we were in a position to get him.

It's getting pretty stupid to say, "Just wait to draft a QB next year when the class is better." In general, people who have said that throughout the Pioli years have been extremely disappointed because the class actually ISN'T better. But when it IS good, we're not a terrible enough team to pick the top guys.

So that's why my mantra has been "Geno Smith in one hand is worth two in the bush."

Oh well. Maybe Luke Joeckel will be Willie Roaf.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

I really hope so. And that's why I really wanted Geno Smith THIS year. Because we were in a position to get him.

I'd like to see them draft someone as well, I just don't know who they're targeting. I had heard back in February that Zac Dysert was very intriguing to them, but I have no idea if they're still interested.

If they're going to trade Albert, I'd sure love to see Nassib or Barkley or Bray with whatever they get in return. But I don't have any idea of what they think of any of those guys, or if they'll even be available when they pick.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-19-2013, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well, sorry Dude, I've talked to agents that have said that Chiefs were a ****ing joke in league circles. There was gross mismanagement and a murder/suicide in 2012. The fans revolted, banners were flown, the stadium was empty. Clark Hunt had to do whatever necessary to turn this franchise around immediately.

They were an embarrassment last year, period.

And those "band-aids" you speak of will likely fill the stands, put the Chiefs in better standing with the league. The agents and players are also more inclined to want to play for a well run team and will at least visit (which is something that wasn't even happening under *****).

It's better to go to Maaco and spiff the car up a bit than drive around a piece of shit. And after 2-14, 4-12, 2-14 and 7-9 seasons, the Chiefs were a piece of shit.

It's pretty obvious that the Chiefs fixed the "joke" belief by firing ***** and Crennel. The mere fact that FA's were willing to sign here before the team had even improved the next year suggests that the tarnish put on the franchise left when the New England mafia did.

FWIW, Eric Winston, Peyton Hillis, and Stanford Routt were trash when they signed here, but they weren't considered trash. So although many players possibly avoided the Chiefs b/c of Pioli, Manning the best example, his taint wasn't absolute.

duncan_idaho · 04-19-2013, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That's pure ****ing bullshit.

Carl Peterson drafted three Hall of Fame players, signed a HOFer in free agency and traded for another. He busted his ass to get a winner in KC his first decade.

They traded for an signed any QB they believed to be capable of beating John Elway and getting to the playoffs.

To pretend as if that didn't happen is just a bunch of ****ing garbage.

So, who should they have drafted and developed?

See ya!

Well, that's just so ****ing magnanimous of you. The Chiefs had "better draft a QB or I'm done!".

****in' pussy.

And all the great work Peterson did was done with a major flaw: No elite play at QB. His method of trading for vets and attempting to get a good QB that way kept that team from ever taking advantage of the multiple All-Pros and Hall of Famers and winning the Super Bowl or even a freaking league title. Having a QB that wouldn't hurt them while ensuring they won 7-11 games.

As for who should they have drafted... there were guys available during the draft in the 90s (Favre, Brunell were both taken with 10-15 picks of a wasted pick for the Chiefs) they could have taken a stab at, but Peterson seemed unwilling to do it after missing on Blundin.

Your use of smillies is impressive.

keg in kc · 04-19-2013, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

Oh well. Maybe Luke Joeckel will be Willie Roaf.

Willie Roaf. The guy 3 years older than Albert that we got for a 4th/conditional 3rd, who played at a pro bowl level for 4 years.

That's the kind of move that a franchise that wants to 'win now' makes. They don't trade away their starting LT and plug in an run-of-the-mill rookie to save some bucks.

We make no sense.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It's pretty obvious that the Chiefs fixed the "joke" belief by firing ***** and Crennel. The mere fact that FA's were willing to sign here before the team had even improved the next year suggests that the tarnish put on the franchise left when the New England mafia did.

Oh, no doubt but that shouldn't diminish the impact of John Dorsey and Andy Reid's arrival in Kansas City. Both men brought instant credibility to the Chiefs franchise and that should not be underestimated.

keg in kc · 04-19-2013, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Oh, no doubt but that shouldn't diminish the impact of John Dorsey and Andy Reid's arrival in Kansas City. Both men brought instant credibility to the Chiefs franchise and that should not be underestimated.

Yeah, it's like we just brought in the Executive of the Decade, and everything is going to be awesome now that Herm is gone!

04-18-2013, 11:01 PM
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $2381769	Albert/Joeckel perspective How would you feel if the Chiefs had the #2 overall pick and packaged it and Albert for Joeckel? Because that's what the Chiefs are on the brink of doing. #1 pick = 3000 points #54 pick = 360 points difference is 2640 points #2 pick is worth 2600 points Chiefs are going to invest 3000 - 360 = 2640 points to replace Albert with Joeckel. It could be a good deal for the Chiefs if 1) Albert is out of the league in two years, 2) Jockel is a HOFer and 3) the alternatives (like Geno) don't have very good careers.
Posts: 45,536