The Chiefs are taking Geno #1; bank on it

[Fat Elvis]

Andy loves him some QBs. And KC has been a bottomless pit of QB suckage. While folks initially freaked out over the ASmith signing (me included), once they locked up Bowe and Albert, it seemed pretty clear that Geno will be the choice at #1.

People say you don't draft a QB #1 to sit on the bench, the first pick of the draft isn't a backup QB. They are right. They say ASmith will be the starter, especially given his compensation. They are right. Ummm, does that mean that Geno is being groomed for a year or two behind Alex? Not necessarily.

What? That is nonsense!

Only in the traditional sense.

I think Reid and Dorsey are thinking waaay outside the box on this one.

If (when) the Chiefs draft Geno, the whole idea of a "backup" QB will be shook up. "Backup" will be a matter of semantics. "Starting" will be a matter of semantics as well.

Reid and Dorsey both see the need for 2 "starting caliber" QBs on a team in today's NFL. San Fran proved beyond a shadow of a doubt last year that it really pays to have 2 QBs on your team who can start for you.

If one "starting caliber" QB goes down, you have another "starting caliber" QB ready to be plugged in and the team doesn't miss a beat.

It has been repeated ad nauseum on this board that the QB is the most important position in all of football. When you have an offense that is predicated on throwing the football 40+ times a game, you can't afford to have a dropoff in productivity should one of your QBs goes down for a time, otherwise your season is effectively over.

Reid and Dorsey get this.

As fans, especially Cheifs fans, we need to rethink our conceptions of "backup" and "starting" and realizing we are entering an era of "starting caliber" QBs.

We are being built to win.

We are being built to win even in the face of adverse contingencies.

We are going to win.

And I like it.

[TribalElder]

Dorsey just cheesed out on the radio when Kevin K asked about drafting a QB.

Never say never

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

So the Redskins invested two #1s, a #2, and a #4 in two rookie quarterbacks. What imbeciles THEY are!

Or maybe they understand the value of the quarterback position a little better than you do.

I never stated they were imbeciles. However, if you are using the Redskins as your template, I can only think of three or four franchises who have done worse than they have in off season acquisitions as compared to expected results since Daniel Snyder has purchased the team.

I am not saying having two good QBs is a bad thing. I am saying the Chiefs are not going to use their #1 to get another QB after just acquiring their starter. They will want an immediate impact player for the number one pick of the draft - it will be expected.

Is it the right thing? I don't know. I know it is speculation to assume that Geno is a starter and an immediate impact player - too much speculation for the Chiefs front office. It simply won't happen.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Maybe I'm not understanding the question, but ......look at the results

Rodgers got to chillax and learn a couple seasons behind a legend...who is to say he didn't learn a TON from favre......

Does your question just assume the results would be the same? Or is there any acknowledgement that playing behind favre a couple seasons couldve helped rodgers a lot?

Rodgers was a 24th pick. An amazing thing considering many picked him as a #1 prior to the combine. And I agree with you, I don't think he would be this smart without the two years of the bench.

But the average fan doesn't want the overall #1 to sit on a bench for 2 years, it doesn't make sense to them. Thus it won't make sense to the front office.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

That would be as stupid as having Alex Smith and Colin Kaepernick on the same team.

Or Matt Flynn and Russell Wilson.

Or RG3 and Kirk Cousins.

What a stupid plan that would be. Jim Harbaugh, Pete Carroll and Mike Shanahan are all idiots.

Exactly. The QB position has become so important in today's game, that it's impossible to have too much talent at that position. Look at the teams you named, and how those teams can approach their respective drafts knowing their QB position is more than set.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Jaws Jaworski, Jim Hart, and Steve Grogan all disagree with you.

Meanwhile Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, and Brad Johnson agree with you.

It's a completely different game than when those guys were playing.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Fish

It's a completely different game than when those guys were playing.

It's always "Different". Yet it still remains the same at the end of the season.

For example: Every 7 or 8 years we are told how important the "new" mobile quarterback is to the game. And after two or three seasons of major injuries and pocket passers winning the big game, it goes back to the same routine. Staubach is the only true mobile QB to win a Superbowl (although an argument could be made for Steve Young).

I am curious though, A question for you and those that do support bringing in Geno Smith, do you then believe Joe Flacco deserves his contract? After all, he is the epitome of "Throwing every resource" at the QB position, isn't he?

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

completely different argument

I am not discussing/debating what the team SHOULD do with the QB position.


I'm talking about what they ARE doing. I just don't see how/why they would give up draft picks for Alex Smith and then turn around and give up the 1st pick of the draft for Geno Smith.

If they didn't give up that much for Alex Smith then all bets are off and we'll see.

Just to clarify, since you keep saying it in other posts, our pick we supposedly gave up is in the second round. Not the first. It's the second second round pick that doesn't make it a first.

Ok that's out of the way.

Now last year the redskins gave up their first, a second, two later firsts and a fourth for two quarterbacks.

They went to the playoffs playing in the same division as Andy Reid. He played that shitty teamtwice a year for quite see time and then saw first hand what spending those picks did for them.



Why is it so far fetched to think he would spend a first and two seconds for two guys?
Posted via Mobile Device

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

You are dumb as ****.

Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers meant the Packers didn't have a a good one?

Thank you
Posted via Mobile Device

[SAUTO]

Hell Brett farve and Matt hasselbeck, neither could be good by that thinking.


Farve and brunell, farve and Aaron Brooks.


now guess where our GM worked when all those combos of two starting caliber qb's where put together...
Posted via Mobile Device

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

It's always "Different". Yet it still remains the same at the end of the season.

For example: Every 7 or 8 years we are told how important the "new" mobile quarterback is to the game. And after two or three seasons of major injuries and pocket passers winning the big game, it goes back to the same routine. Staubach is the only true mobile QB to win a Superbowl (although an argument could be made for Steve Young).

I am curious though, A question for you and those that do support bringing in Geno Smith, do you then believe Joe Flacco deserves his contract? After all, he is the epitome of "Throwing every resource" at the QB position, isn't he?

is the argument over young that he didn't win one or that he wasn't mobile?


Either one makes as much sense as the other
Posted via Mobile Device

[SAUTO]

Oh and **** yeah flacco deserves his contract
Posted via Mobile Device

[Mr. Laz]

keep the dream alive


more power to ya

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Again, if Alex Smith were 7 years older and closer to retirement, you would have an argument. As it stands, this comparison is just not comparable at all.

What year did farve go there?

They drafted hasselbeck in 94 iirc.

Brunell in 98

Brooks in 99

All iirc, could be a year off on one or two but I think it shot your argument all to shit anyway
Posted via Mobile Device

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Rodgers was a 24th pick. An amazing thing considering many picked him as a #1 prior to the combine. And I agree with you, I don't think he would be this smart without the two years of the bench.

But the average fan doesn't want the overall #1 to sit on a bench for 2 years, it doesn't make sense to them. Thus it won't make sense to the front office.

Dude, are you ok?


Did you fall down anytime recently?


bump your head?



Surely you don't think that if it doesn't make sense to fans it won't make sense to the front office.


Please tell me you are kidding
Posted via Mobile Device

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

I never stated they were imbeciles. However, if you are using the Redskins as your template, I can only think of three or four franchises who have done worse than they have in off season acquisitions as compared to expected results since Daniel Snyder has purchased the team.

I am not saying having two good QBs is a bad thing. I am saying the Chiefs are not going to use their #1 to get another QB after just acquiring their starter. They will want an immediate impact player for the number one pick of the draft - it will be expected.

Is it the right thing? I don't know. I know it is speculation to assume that Geno is a starter and an immediate impact player - too much speculation for the Chiefs front office. It simply won't happen.

Name the immediate impact player in this draft
Posted via Mobile Device