If not #1, where?

[Micjones]

The draftniks keep saying that Geno Smith isn't worth the #1 pick.
None of them say he isn't the top QB in the class though.
If we don't take him at #1 how far is he realistically going to fall?

I see no scenario where he falls out of the Top 10.

So if he's the top QB in a weak class...
QB is our biggest need...
And he's gonna go Top 10 anyway...

Why not at #1?

Am I wrong to say he won't fall out of the Top 10?

Discuss...

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Why?

If Dorsey and Reid were to trade for a Flynn or Smith, they'd have an immediate, capable starter, which would allow them to accumulate picks and address serious issues of need. It would also give them breathing room in order to draft a QB in the later rounds and develop him or wait until the 2014 draft.

Just to clarify, I'm not stating that this is my preference. I'm stating that it's an option that either hasn't been discussed or met with such disdain that people are unwilling to discuss.

And again, given the public statements by Dorsey and Reid, I think it's just as likely to happen as taking a QB #1 overall.

Acquiring someone else's trash will doom this franchise to more years of mediocrity. Year after year, we will know with absolute certainty that there is no hope of winning a SB.

Tannehill went #8 overall last year. Every single QB in this draft is a lesser prospect than this? Don't buy it.

There is a franchise QB in this draft. Somewhere. Chiefs have to find it.

If Reid believes this is some overlooked prospect whom he can get in the second, fine. I'll give him the initial benefit of the doubt despite my protests. But he better be right.

(By the way, I goofed: Gabbert was selected #10 overall in the first. Got my wires crossed.)

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Gets lucky? So that's the criteria for a GM to select a first round QB?

"Well, what the ****?! I might get lucky!".

**** me if that's what John Dorsey and Andy Reid are thinking.

Are you saying Geno Smith = Gabbert?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I agree that they have good sized window to prove that they can build a team. I just dont think that they would think that trading for Flynn/Smith is a good idea. They are smart men. The NFL knows what Smith and Flynn are. Why settle for mediocrity at best?

Time will tell, but im confident that they wont trade for Flynn or any other back up QB.

I could be wrong i guess....

And once again, just to clarify, I'm not stating that this should be the direction, nor is it my preference.

But options, other than taking a QB #1 overall, do exist for the Chiefs.

[O.city]

610 was talking today about the possibility of trading a pick to the Eagles for Foles. Wonder if that would actually be an option.

[Chief Roundup]

Here is the thing. No matter what they, Ried and Dorsey, do the only thing that matters is winning. If they win games they will be praised. If they lose games they will get crized. What matters the most is to be able to move from that decision quickly if it doesn't seem to be working.

[DeezNutz]

If the Chiefs decide to try to acquire someone else's QB, and we're dead set on not drafting a franchise QB, I sincerely hope that Flacco shits the bed this Sunday. Perhaps this would be enough to make the Ravens stupid enough to walk away from him.

If need be, I'd back the Brinks truck up to get him, and/or I'd trade the #1 overall pick. Without thinking twice.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Are you saying Geno Smith = Gabbert?

I'm saying nothing of the sort.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

it's amazing to me that people don't, after so many years of complete ****ing failure...but i assume those people have just given up

there is a way teams win in this league...we have never tried it

we're not crazy for wanting to try it ONCE

Who is this mythical "We" you speak of?

When did fans and football forum members begin selecting players for their favorite franchises?

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Gets lucky? So that's the criteria for a GM to select a first round QB?

"Well, what the ****?! I might get lucky!".

**** me if that's what John Dorsey and Andy Reid are thinking.

Hold it. We're talking about Gene Smith, not John Dorsey. One at a time.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by SNR

Hold it. We're talking about Gene Smith, not John Dorsey. One at a time.

That why I said "**** me".

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Why?

If Dorsey and Reid were to trade for a Flynn or Smith, they'd have an immediate, capable starter, which would allow them to accumulate picks and address serious issues of need. It would also give them breathing room in order to draft a QB in the later rounds and develop him or wait until the 2014 draft.

Just to clarify, I'm not stating that this is my preference. I'm stating that it's an option that either hasn't been discussed or met with such disdain that people are unwilling to discuss.

And again, given the public statements by Dorsey and Reid, I think it's just as likely to happen as taking a QB #1 overall.

Here's an entirely undisdainful (yes, I will make that a real word) explanation of why that strategy is bogus.

The Chiefs need a great QB. That we can all agree on. The purpose of acquiring a younger vet like Flynn is to save draft value at that #1 overall pick and to get the team in a better position either later in the 2013 draft or at any time in the 2014 draft to simply find the right guy that they need. It's basically saying, "Boy, getting this first down is pretty risky. We need to punt so we save on field position, protect our limited game manager QB, and try again next possession, ideally when our defense makes a stop."

Now, when it's 4th and 20 at your own 10 yard line, then that's a pretty smart strategy. You might get lucky and get a defensive TD even, but if you don't you're at least keeping yourself alive to fight another day. And that's kind of the position the Chiefs were in last year in the first round. We played conservative and stayed where we were, and all of a sudden the draft's top 3 QBs were gone. We said, "Well, shitpiss. It doesn't do any good to draft Brandon ****ing Weeden at 11 overall. That's just stupid. Let's take a non QB here."

The problem with doing that this year is there IS no reason to play field position. We have the #1 overall pick. That's the highest position you can get to find your top QB. It doesn't do any good to wait until 2014 when we're not going to have as high a vantage point or decision to pick the right guy. If this were football, we'd be down 3 TDs in the 3rd quarter and have the ball 3rd and 1 from the opponent's 20 yard line. Instead of treating it like 4 down territory, the play being called is the equivalent of a kneel down so we can bring on the field goal kicker and "save the points". In this metaphor, those precious points are "draft value." They're worthless because of the situation. Down 3 TDs. We need TDs (QBs) or at the very least a ****ing first down. It does no good to play for points here.

And yes, it WOULD be one thing if next year had like, 5 Andrew Lucks so there was a pretty good ****ing chance we'd be able to pick one of them and not have to lose out like we did last year. But there's not. There's ****ing Teddy Bridgewater, a much worse prospect than either Geno OR Wilson in my opinion. Call is speculation and assuming the unknowable, but for crying out loud, think about it. You're punting the ball away for TEDDY BRIDGEWATER? WTF makes the Dorsey or Reid think their QB will be there in 2014?

And we can keep playing this game. "Well, what if he IS there in 2014?" Okay, but what if he's ****ing not, which is a very likely scenario?

Ever hear the phrase "one in the hand is worth two in the bush?" That describes this situation perfectly. If we draft a QB at 1, we're getting the best QB in a draft class. There will be other better QBs in future drafts. But we don't know when those will come around. And it's ****ing useless to speculate when that's going to happen.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by SNR

Ever hear the phrase "one in the hand is worth two in the bush?" That describes this situation perfectly. If we draft a QB at 1, we're getting the best QB in a draft class. There will be other better QBs in future drafts. But we don't know when those will come around. And it's ****ing useless to speculate when that's going to happen.

This is true. But it's also true that none of us have any idea which path Dorsey and Reid will choose at this point in time.

If the mandate from Clark Hunt was "Find me a Franchise QB THIS year", I'd imagine they'll take someone at #1 overall. If the mandate was "Find me a Franchise QB in the next three years", they have options.

None of us know. Dorsey, Reid and Hunt have all stated publicly that choosing a QB #1 overall isn't a mandate. While some people choose to believe they're bluffing, it's also just as likely that they're telling the truth.

I will refrain from making a judgement until after the decision has been announced.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by O.city

610 was talking today about the possibility of trading a pick to the Eagles for Foles. Wonder if that would actually be an option.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by O.city

610 was talking today about the possibility of trading a pick to the Eagles for Foles. Wonder if that would actually be an option.

**** Foles. **** Blackbob. And **** everybody who has ever loved Foles or Blackbob.

[O.city]

If we fly into free agency and re up Albert or tag him, that will be the first "clue" as to whats going on.

I'm sure we will hear stuff from the combines, pro days etc too. Hell, with the iron fist that was Pioli gone, maybe TBG will hear something from his source.

Either way, I don't see why it's such a bad thing to atleast engage in debate about other options at this point.