Chiefs Order from Clark to not draft a QB in round one - Page 6

ILChief · 12-23-2014, 06:29 AM

It's stated over and over on this forum that Clark (and Lamar before him) have forbidden the GM's from drafting a QB in round one.

Do you believe this is true or is this just a tinfoil hat conspiracy? Poll is public and no Gaz option.

**ChiTown** · 12-23-2014, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy 6

Dude, do you reeeally think that?

As loyal as this fan base is, he could hire any old unknown or lackluster name to run this team and still make bank... if he's as greedy and money hungry as you say, then doesnt it stand to reason that if 8-8 or worse still makes him good money, then 12-4 and a AFCCG or Super Bowl appearance makes him great money?

Clark (The Hunt Family) cares about butts in the seats. The impetus is not placed on AFC Championship and SB appearances. He wants a team that stays competitive - anything over that is gravy. It's a ridiculously low standard, and THE REASON why we have been mired in the "just above mediocrity" zone for decades. We haven't tried in a big way since Montana left. It's a complete **** job to the fans.

and yes,

Mr. Laz · 12-23-2014, 03:14 PM

i doubt it.

He will say spend this or don't spend that. He will say push to win now for business reasons.

I don't think he's interested in the specifics of football.

keg in kc · 12-23-2014, 03:15 PM

I think they actually want to draft one, or think they do, but they're so terrified of a bust/paralyzed by analysis that they won't draft anybody in the first who isn't a sure thing. Which means they have to draft in the top couple of picks and Andrew Luck has to be on the board. Anything riskier than that and they seem to talk themselves out of it, go for something safer. They've had too many shots at falling players in the latter half of the round. There's always a reason not to take one when one's there.

And they also have a habit for diving in the bargain bin. Like real value at the quarterback position is found in the 5th-7th rounds, or undrafted free agency. Seems they have this pathological dream of finding the next Tom Brady or Kurt Warner. Maybe it's a competitive thing, to prove they can be the one team in a decade to pull that off, instead of doing the sane thing and giving up premium value for a premium position

Maybe they just prefer the 'known quantity'. Seems to be substantial evidence of that, what with the never-ending string of veteran backups and journeymen.

In any case the why of it really doesn't matter. Whether it's a directive from the top or a curse of circumstance from the football gods, the fact remains that it's been more than three decades.

Mr. Laz · 12-23-2014, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy 6

Dude, do you reeeally think that?

As loyal as this fan base is, he could hire any old unknown or lackluster name to run this team and still make bank... if he's as greedy and money hungry as you say, then doesnt it stand to reason that if 8-8 or worse still makes him good money, then 12-4 and a AFCCG or Super Bowl appearance makes him great money?

Yes, but AFCCG/Super bowl appearances take MUCH MORE financial risk to achieve.

I don't think the Hunt family has ever really pushed to win a super bowl.

Do they want to win? Of course.

Mr. Laz · 12-23-2014, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think they actually want to draft one, or think they do, but they're so terrified of a bust/paralyzed by analysis that they won't draft anybody in the first who isn't a sure thing. Which means they have to draft in the top couple of picks and Andrew Luck has to be on the board. Anything riskier than that and they seem to talk themselves out of it, go for something safer. They've had too many shots at falling players in the latter half of the round. There's always a reason not to take one when one's there.

And they also have a habit for diving in the bargain bin. Like real value at the quarterback position is found in the 5th-7th rounds, or undrafted free agency. Seems they have this pathological dream of finding the next Tom Brady or Kurt Warner. Maybe it's a competitive thing, to prove they can be the one team in a decade to pull that off, instead of doing the sane thing and giving up premium value for a premium position.

In any case the why of it really doesn't matter. Whether it's a directive from the top or a curse of circumstance from the football gods, the fact remains that it's been more than three decades.

So you are saying the Hunt family is the Alex Smith of NFL Owners?

check down,check down ... why risk it

ILChief · 12-23-2014, 03:21 PM

I think they would have taken Matt Ryan or Matt Stafford if they had the chance

keg in kc · 12-23-2014, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

So you are saying the Hunt family is the Alex Smith of NFL Owners?

check down,check down ... why risk it

You know, that might be a really great analogy.

tecumseh · 12-23-2014, 03:27 PM

If anything. it seems the Hunts overlook the QB position or don't have an opinion. It's obvious Clark isn't in Dorcey's ear for a first round QB at all costs. The arguement that he just wants a competitive team makes sense. But I wish that would be the starting off point instead of the ultimate goal. He probably doesn't meddle as long as the team is competitive.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 12-23-2014, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILChief

I think they would have taken Matt Ryan or Matt Stafford if they had the chance

Because in 2008, a team with #5, #17, a second and three thirds isn't going to be able to move up to #2 if they want to?

And Detroit was open to shopping that pick in 2009. Stafford was there if the Chiefs really wanted him. They chose Cassel instead.

**ChiTown** · 12-23-2014, 03:29 PM

You want to win a SB? You can't just sit around the Craps Table and watch - you got to grab the gawdamn dice and roll em'!

That's NOT the Hunt Family style. They are methodical, low risk decision makers. The last time they REALLY took a risk was in 1993 when they went out and got Montana and Allen in FA. That only yielded our only AFC Championship appearance in the last 44 years, but hey, you know, it's just been too risky since then.......

ChiliConCarnage · 12-23-2014, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

The last time they REALLY took a risk was in 1993 when they went out and got Montana and Allen in FA.

I was fairly young then but those were considered risky moves?

Reerun_KC · 12-23-2014, 03:35 PM

A brokedick Manning would be perfect for the jank ass horizontal offense Reid loves to run.

Herm makes better adjustments than reid.

Dayze · 12-23-2014, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

You want to win a SB? You can't just sit around the Craps Table and watch - you got to grab the gawdamn dice and roll em'!

That's NOT the Hunt Family style. They are methodical, low risk decision makers. The last time they REALLY took a risk was in 1993 when they went out and got Montana and Allen in FA. That only yielded our only AFC Championship appearance in the last 44 years, but hey, you know, it's just been too risky since then.......

The Hunts probably play $.50 Video Poker at the Casino.

**ChiTown** · 12-23-2014, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiliConCarnage

I was fairly young then but those were considered risky moves?

Montana was absolutely at the end of his career and Allen had been benched in LA, and hadn't played significant downs in a couple of years. So yeah, it was certainly a risk, and one that paid off well.

keg in kc · 12-23-2014, 03:38 PM

It was the same shit they always do, just has been hall of famers instead of never were journeymen.

View Poll Results: Do you believe Clark (and Lamar before him) ordered the GM's to not take a qb1?
Yes - Clark Hunt has a policy to not draft first round QBs	23	15.44%
No - Clark Hunt hires football people and lets them make all roster decisions	126	84.56%
Voters: 149. You may not vote on this poll

12-23-2014, 06:29 AM
ILChief MVP Join Date: Jan 2001 Casino cash: $7914831	Order from Clark to not draft a QB in round one It's stated over and over on this forum that Clark (and Lamar before him) have forbidden the GM's from drafting a QB in round one. Do you believe this is true or is this just a tinfoil hat conspiracy? Poll is public and no Gaz option.
Posts: 11,476

12-23-2014, 03:14 PM	#77
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	i doubt it. He will say spend this or don't spend that. He will say push to win now for business reasons. I don't think he's interested in the specifics of football. __________________
Posts: 95,626

12-23-2014, 03:15 PM	#78
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	I think they actually want to draft one, or think they do, but they're so terrified of a bust/paralyzed by analysis that they won't draft anybody in the first who isn't a sure thing. Which means they have to draft in the top couple of picks and Andrew Luck has to be on the board. Anything riskier than that and they seem to talk themselves out of it, go for something safer. They've had too many shots at falling players in the latter half of the round. There's always a reason not to take one when one's there. And they also have a habit for diving in the bargain bin. Like real value at the quarterback position is found in the 5th-7th rounds, or undrafted free agency. Seems they have this pathological dream of finding the next Tom Brady or Kurt Warner. Maybe it's a competitive thing, to prove they can be the one team in a decade to pull that off, instead of doing the sane thing and giving up premium value for a premium position Maybe they just prefer the 'known quantity'. Seems to be substantial evidence of that, what with the never-ending string of veteran backups and journeymen. In any case the why of it really doesn't matter. Whether it's a directive from the top or a curse of circumstance from the football gods, the fact remains that it's been more than three decades.
Posts: 58,682

12-23-2014, 03:21 PM	#81
ILChief MVP Join Date: Jan 2001 Casino cash: $7914831	I think they would have taken Matt Ryan or Matt Stafford if they had the chance
Posts: 11,476

12-23-2014, 03:27 PM	#83
tecumseh Veteran Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Sweet Spot Casino cash: $9990615	If anything. it seems the Hunts overlook the QB position or don't have an opinion. It's obvious Clark isn't in Dorcey's ear for a first round QB at all costs. The arguement that he just wants a competitive team makes sense. But I wish that would be the starting off point instead of the ultimate goal. He probably doesn't meddle as long as the team is competitive.
Posts: 4,429

12-23-2014, 03:29 PM	#85
ChiTown Stroking to the SB Champs! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Flatlands of Kansas Casino cash: $3213962	You want to win a SB? You can't just sit around the Craps Table and watch - you got to grab the gawdamn dice and roll em'! That's NOT the Hunt Family style. They are methodical, low risk decision makers. The last time they REALLY took a risk was in 1993 when they went out and got Montana and Allen in FA. That only yielded our only AFC Championship appearance in the last 44 years, but hey, you know, it's just been too risky since then....... __________________
Posts: 39,346

12-23-2014, 03:35 PM	#87
Reerun_KC Rock Chalk Jayhawks! KU!!! Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $8301160	A brokedick Manning would be perfect for the jank ass horizontal offense Reid loves to run. Herm makes better adjustments than reid.
Posts: 934

12-23-2014, 03:38 PM	#90
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	It was the same shit they always do, just has been hall of famers instead of never were journeymen.
Posts: 58,682