Chiefs Alex Smith to ask for release

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-31-2013, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

However, the BEST part of Alex Smith coming would be allowing Geno Smith to sit for a year or two and develop. I know that rookies come in kicking ass these days, but I think Geno could actually use the time. I think he could use the coaching. And make him hungry. Everyone knows Geno is a studious, filmroom junkie. With a year of coaching and staying injury-free, he could come out in 2014 and destroy fools.

As I've stated before, there is no way that the Chiefs take Smith at #1 overall and even sit him for a game, barring injury.

It would be a P.R. disaster and he'd be labeled a bust from Day One. I doubt he'd recover from it.

If they choose a QB at #1, he HAS to start on opening day. There are no other options.

htismaqe · 01-31-2013, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

As I've stated before, there is no way that the Chiefs take Smith at #1 overall and even sit him for a game, barring injury.

It would be a P.R. disaster and he'd be labeled a bust from Day One. I doubt he'd recover from it.

If they choose a QB at #1, he HAS to start on opening day. There are no other options.

Yep.

saphojunkie · 01-31-2013, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

As I've stated before, there is no way that the Chiefs take Smith at #1 overall and even sit him for a game, barring injury.

It would be a P.R. disaster and he'd be labeled a bust from Day One. I doubt he'd recover from it.

If they choose a QB at #1, he HAS to start on opening day. There are no other options.

I disagree.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-31-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

I disagree.

The last QB taken #1 overall to sit any games his rookie season was Eli Manning in 2004.

2004.

If you don't believe it would be a P.R. disaster for them to take a QB #1 and sit him for "a year or two", you're completely out of touch.

****, they're facing an uphill battle with the fanbase if they take a QB #1 overall over Joeckel! If they choose a QB and he sits for two years, the guy won't be able to show his face in KC area.

All you'll see and hear at the stadium and on the local talk radio will be "Bust" and "See, this is why you never take a QB in the first round. It's too risky".

No way that happens.

htismaqe · 01-31-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The last QB taken #1 overall to sit any games his rookie season was Eli Manning in 2004.

2004.

If you don't believe it would be a P.R. disaster for them to take a QB #1 and sit him for "a year or two", you're completely out of touch.

****, they're facing an uphill battle with the fanbase if they take a QB #1 overall over Joeckel! If they choose a QB and he sits for two years, the guy won't be able to show his face in KC area.

All you'll see and hear at the stadium and on the local talk radio will be "Bust" and "See, this is why you never take a QB in the first round. It's too risky".

No way that happens.

This.

RyFo18 · 01-31-2013, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

****, they're facing an uphill battle with the fanbase if they take a QB #1 overall over Joeckel! If they choose a QB and he sits for two years, the guy won't be able to show his face in KC area.

I get what you are saying, but if the team wins, the fanbase will not care.

I would like a QB at #1, but I'm not going to be a beligerent fan calling this regime a failure b/c a QB isn't drafted at #1 overall. If they truly believe they can win by taking another route to get there, then they shouldn't let an unruly fanbase deter them from that route.

Case in point being Harbaugh. The 49ers were instantly turned from a talented, poorly coached squad to Super Bowl contenders with the exact same QB. Fans hated Alex Smith, wanted his head. Harbaugh overcame that, and Alex became a welcome face in SF once again.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-31-2013, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyFo18

I get what you are saying, but if the team wins, the fanbase will not care.

I would like a QB at #1, but I'm not going to be a beligerent fan calling this regime a failure b/c a QB isn't drafted at #1 overall. If they truly believe they can win by taking another route to get there, then they shouldn't let an unruly fanbase deter them from that route.

Case in point being Harbaugh. The 49ers were instantly turned from a talented, poorly coached squad to Super Bowl contenders with the exact same QB. Fans hated Alex Smith, wanted his head. Harbaugh overcame that, and Alex became a welcome face in SF once again.

You're missing the point, entirely.

Once again, it would be a Public Relations DISASTER for the Kansas City Chiefs to select a QB #1, only to bench him for two years while he "develops".

He'd be labeled a bust by absolutely everyone in the media, national or local.

**BossChief** · 01-31-2013, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You're missing the point, entirely.

Once again, it would be a Public Relations DISASTER for the Kansas City Chiefs to select a QB #1, only to bench him for two years while he "develops".

He'd be labeled a bust by absolutely everyone in the media, national or local.

That would depend on the play of the starter.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-31-2013, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

That would depend on the play of the starter.

I don't think so.

Keitzman and all the other local guys would be hammering Reid and Dorsey for taking a QB #1 that can't break the starting lineup. And if the other first round QB's have any success at all (which given the climate in recent years, is certainly a possibility), he'll be looked upon as a bust.

If the Chiefs select a QB #1, he must be able to start Day One, barring injury.

**BossChief** · 01-31-2013, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The last QB taken #1 overall to sit any games his rookie season was Eli Manning in 2004.

2004.

If you don't believe it would be a P.R. disaster for them to take a QB #1 and sit him for "a year or two", you're completely out of touch.

****, they're facing an uphill battle with the fanbase if they take a QB #1 overall over Joeckel! If they choose a QB and he sits for two years, the guy won't be able to show his face in KC area.

All you'll see and hear at the stadium and on the local talk radio will be "Bust" and "See, this is why you never take a QB in the first round. It's too risky".

No way that happens.

I don't think Andy Reid gives a shit. I know things change and all, but McNabb sat for about half his rookie season while Reid groomed him and I wouldn't be shocked to see him implement a similar approach with Geno.

Shit, maybe he keeps Cassel and pulls a similar stunt as Harbaugh with Alex Smith and Kaepernick and ends up trading Cassel and we "get our money back" on him in terms of a draft pick.

htismaqe · 01-31-2013, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

I don't think Andy Reid gives a shit. I know things change and all, but McNabb sat for about half his rookie season while Reid groomed him and I wouldn't be shocked to see him implement a similar approach with Geno.

We're not, and never have been, talking about a rookie QB sitting for half a season.

We're not talking about the Blaine Gabbert scenario, we're talking about the Aaron Rodgers scenario. The fanbase absolutely wouldn't stand for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

Shit, maybe he keeps Cassel and pulls a similar stunt as Harbaugh with Alex Smith and Kaepernick and ends up trading Cassel and we "get our money back" on him in terms of a draft pick.

So you think Andy Reid is gonna start Cassel for the next year and a half?

saphojunkie · 01-31-2013, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The last QB taken #1 overall to sit any games his rookie season was Eli Manning in 2004.

2004.

If you don't believe it would be a P.R. disaster for them to take a QB #1 and sit him for "a year or two", you're completely out of touch.

****, they're facing an uphill battle with the fanbase if they take a QB #1 overall over Joeckel! If they choose a QB and he sits for two years, the guy won't be able to show his face in KC area.

All you'll see and hear at the stadium and on the local talk radio will be "Bust" and "See, this is why you never take a QB in the first round. It's too risky".

No way that happens.

I really do love that two SoCal guys are arguing over the emotional climate of Kansas City, but let's not let that stop us.

2004 is - historically speaking - not that long ago. And the fact that the last QB to go 1.1 and sit has won TWO SUPER BOWLS only further enhances my point.

The year before, Carson Palmer went first overall and didn't play his rookie season.

A lot of QBs start their whole rookie season, and it can absolutely crush them.

Obviously, guys have to neither start nor sit their rookie season to be successful, so I don't buy into the theory that the Chiefs "absolutely" have to do one or the other.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-31-2013, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

I really do love that two SoCal guys are arguing over the emotional climate of Kansas City, but let's not let that stop us.

2004 is - historically speaking - not that long ago. And the fact that the last QB to go 1.1 and sit has won TWO SUPER BOWLS only further enhances my point.

The year before, Carson Palmer went first overall and didn't play his rookie season.

A lot of QBs start their whole rookie season, and it can absolutely crush them.

Obviously, guys have to neither start nor sit their rookie season to be successful, so I don't buy into the theory that the Chiefs "absolutely" have to do one or the other.

When guys like Bradford, Cam Newton and Andrew Luck start from Day One and have successful if not amazing rookie seasons, people will question whether or not the Chiefs made the right decision by taking a QB #1 overall, especially in a "Weak Draft Class". And that's not to mention guys like Russell Wilson, RGIII, Weedon, etc. that started Day One.

I truly do not believe that Reid and Dorsey want to begin their era with a cloud of doubt hanging over their heads.

If they want a guy to develop, get him in the later rounds or next year. If the guy taken at #1 needs to be developed in order to get on the field, he never should have been taken at #1 overall.

Reach.

saphojunkie · 01-31-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

When guys like Bradford, Cam Newton and Andrew Luck start from Day One and have successful if not amazing rookie seasons, people will question whether or not the Chiefs made the right decision by taking a QB #1 overall, especially in a "Weak Draft Class". And that's not to mention guys like Russell Wilson, RGIII, Weedon, etc. that started Day One.

I truly do not believe that Reid and Dorsey want to begin their era with a cloud of doubt hanging over their heads.

If they want a guy to develop, get him in the later rounds or next year. If the guy taken at #1 needs to be developed in order to get on the field, he never should have been taken at #1 overall.

Reach.

Yeah, I just see it the other way around. I would be pissed if we took a QB in the 2nd or 3rd and had him sit behind a veteran free agent. This is probably what will happen, and I'll hate it.

The sheer joy of drafting a QB first overall would be more than enough to carry me through 2013, even if he sat. Besides, everyone knows the old "Start the dern rookie!" stuff is a tried and true tradition. It's just good theater.

I think the only real way for the Chiefs to completely turn the crowd against them is to either give up too much for Alex Smith or start Cassel again.

Otherwise, we will all talk ourselves into liking whatever they do. Well, not all of us, but a large portion, I imagine.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-31-2013, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Yeah, I just see it the other way around. I would be pissed if we took a QB in the 2nd or 3rd and had him sit behind a veteran free agent. This is probably what will happen, and I'll hate it.

The sheer joy of drafting a QB first overall would be more than enough to carry me through 2013, even if he sat. Besides, everyone knows the old "Start the dern rookie!" stuff is a tried and true tradition. It's just good theater.

I think the only real way for the Chiefs to completely turn the crowd against them is to either give up too much for Alex Smith or start Cassel again.

Otherwise, we will all talk ourselves into liking whatever they do. Well, not all of us, but a large portion, I imagine.

I cannot imagine that a year after going 2-14, banners, blackouts, the murder-suicide and firing of everyone at One Arrowhead Drive that the new regime would take a QB #1 overall and sit him in favor or Alex Smith or Matt Flynn or Matt Moore.

P.R. disaster.