Chiefs The Chiefs are taking Geno #1; bank on it - Page 32

Fat Elvis · 03-05-2013, 11:03 AM

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.

Rasputin · 03-06-2013, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

No, what I mean is he has the POTENTIAL to be a career backup. If this was not the case there would be team splooging all over him but there's not.

The biggest issue Geno Smith has is that he isn't Andrew Luck. He is a top ten prospect could go #1 through 10. I don't see him getting past the Cardinals in this draft. So he has the potential to be a starter for a long time in this league. He needs to take advantage of any and all opportunities he gets.

**RealSNR** · 03-06-2013, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If you draft a QB #1, trade for a QB with the #2, you're essentially heading into the season with the same exact roster that just went 2-14.

I don't see how that's even an option.

Versus drafting an OT and moving Albert over to LG as the "big upgrade"

OHHHH VERY NICE!

**BossChief** · 03-06-2013, 02:04 PM

When Reid drafted McNabb, he sat him for half his rookie season for Doug Peterson...our current offensive coordinator.

Reid also never went into a season with as little as only Alex Smith at QB.

He even said that he wants a quarterback that can win games for him, not just a game manager.

**SAUTO** · 03-06-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Dude, nearly every guy taken in the past 15 years at #1 overall started from Day One. Jamarcus Russell didn't and sucked. Tim Couch didn't and sucked.

Eli didn't start Day One but Coughlin admitted later it was a mistake to make him sit on the bench. I don't know if the Bengals feel the same but they basically wasted an entire year of Palmer's career.

If you're going #1 overall, that player had better damn sure start from Day One.

Period.

again, that is just silly.

like i said its about the totality of a players career. not year 1

Rasputin · 03-06-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

Versus drafting an OT and moving Albert over to LG as the "big upgrade"

OHHHH VERY NICE!

This + Dorsey has said Albert is a LT not a guard and also healthy to be our starting LT this year.

**The Franchise** · 03-06-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If you draft a QB #1, trade for a QB with the #2, you're essentially heading into the season with the same exact roster that just went 2-14.

I don't see how that's even an option.

Not true.

They've already signed Husain Abdullah. I wouldn't be surprised if he's our starting FS next year.

They can realistically sign a #2 CB and a DE in FA.

Maybe....just maybe Dorsey and Reid see a lot of what happened with last years team as a result of horrible coaching and QB play. If that's the case....they could realistically use this year to draft their QBoTF and see what the current roster (plus a couple of moves) nets them.

**BossChief** · 03-06-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If you draft a QB #1, trade for a QB with the #2, you're essentially heading into the season with the same exact roster that just went 2-14.

I don't see how that's even an option.

It's called "building the foundation"

**SAUTO** · 03-06-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well I'm sorry, that's just plain ****ing stupid.

If they stay at #1, they had better take a guy with immediate starting ability if not immediate impact.

Anything else is just plain unacceptable.

name the guy

**SAUTO** · 03-06-2013, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If you draft a QB #1, trade for a QB with the #2, you're essentially heading into the season with the same exact roster that just went 2-14.

I don't see how that's even an option.

close to the same roster.

well except at the MOST IMPORTANT POSITION.

and better coaching

saphojunkie · 03-06-2013, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

This is 2013, not 2004 or 1994 or 1964. The #1 overall pick is expected to start DAY ONE and contribute. If that player can't start and contribute, you've wasted the pick.

Only two guys since 1995's KiJana Carter (ACL tear) taken number one overall didn't start immediately: Tim Couch (15 games) and you guessed it, JaMarcus Russell (4 games).

The #1 overall player better start from Day One or you've just ****ed your team.

Try Eli Manning and Carson Palmer. What the ****?

WHO GIVES A **** IF HE STARTS OR DOESN'T START IMMEDIATELY? I ONLY CARE IF HE IS A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK.

Jeez, you are way overboard on this.

Option A) Draft a QB #1 overall, he starts immediately and fails for lack of proper handling and development.

Option B) Draft a QB #1 overall, sit him for a year while he learns and adjusts, goes to 7 straight pro bowls and wins Super Bowl MVP.

You do realize that you are saying Option B isn't even on the table, right? That you would ONLY choose option A, 100% of the time.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-06-2013, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

again, that is just silly.

like i said its about the totality of a players career. not year 1

No, it's not. It's about immediate impact to your franchise.

If you choose a guy at #1 overall that needs to sit a year before playing in the NFL, you've chosen unwisely.

This is especially true in 2013, since contract lengths have been shortened.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-06-2013, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Try Eli Manning and Carson Palmer. What the ****?

WHO GIVES A **** IF HE STARTS OR DOESN'T START IMMEDIATELY? I ONLY CARE IF HE IS A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK.

Jeez, you are way overboard on this.

Option A) Draft a QB #1 overall, he starts immediately and fails for lack of proper handling and development.

Option B) Draft a QB #1 overall, sit him for a year while he learns and adjusts, goes to 7 straight pro bowls and wins Super Bowl MVP.

You do realize that you are saying Option B isn't even on the table, right? That you would ONLY choose option A, 100% of the time.

This isn't TWO THOUSAND ****ING THREE.

If a team chooses a player at #1 overall that has to sit out a ****ING YEAR, that player was OVERDRAFTED.

**SAUTO** · 03-06-2013, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No, it's not. It's about immediate impact to your franchise.

If you choose a guy at #1 overall that needs to sit a year before playing in the NFL, you've chosen unwisely.

This is especially true in 2013, since contract lengths have been shortened.

we will just have to agree to disagree here.

**SAUTO** · 03-06-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

This isn't TWO THOUSAND ****ING THREE.

If a team chooses a player at #1 overall that has to sit out a ****ING YEAR, that player was OVERDRAFTED.

what if he sits 8 games?

**Canofbier** · 03-06-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No, it's not. It's about immediate impact to your franchise.

If you choose a guy at #1 overall that needs to sit a year before playing in the NFL, you've chosen unwisely.

This is especially true in 2013, since contract lengths have been shortened.

I disagree when it comes to the QB position. You draft for long-term potential, not immediate gratification.

03-05-2013, 11:03 AM
Fat Elvis Sexiest Athlete Join Date: Apr 2001 Casino cash: $1601925	The Chiefs are taking Geno #1; bank on it 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.
Posts: 12,372

03-06-2013, 02:04 PM	#468
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $1964088	When Reid drafted McNabb, he sat him for half his rookie season for Doug Peterson...our current offensive coordinator. Reid also never went into a season with as little as only Alex Smith at QB. He even said that he wants a quarterback that can win games for him, not just a game manager. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,096

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode