Chiefs The Chiefs are taking Geno #1; bank on it - Page 31

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.

**RealSNR** · 03-06-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Rather UNlimited. I believe that Dorseyis setting things up to take the highest rated player on his draft board and thats what smart teams do. Free agency is the place to fill needs the draft is the place to take the BPA.

That BPA strategy sounds great and all. It really does.

It's perfect when the team's foundation is in place. When you've got your LT, good starters on defense, and that other thing. QB. Yeah, that's pretty important.

Going to a BPA draft strategy is ****ing reeruned if you don't have a QB.

Hootie · 03-06-2013, 01:34 PM

Eli Manning sat and that worked out pretty well...

I'm not naive enough to think Geno will be the pick at #1 but if they do draft him and sit him for a year, even 3rd string him a la Palmer, I'm 100% ok with that and would be a happy camper all season long regardless of W/L results.

**The Franchise** · 03-06-2013, 01:35 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.

Then there are basically 2 positions in this draft where you can realistically start from day 1. CB and DE.

We all know there is basically a 3 year curve for a defensive lineman.....so his first year is going to be meh at best. And taking a CB at #1 to be your #2 is a little rough. What's the learning curve for a rookie CB? How'd Joe Haden do his first year? Patrick Peterson (remove his PR/KR stats)?

**BossChief** · 03-06-2013, 01:35 PM

BPA "on our board"

Surely, they set their board partially by need.

Look at GBs draft history....when their defense sucked, they spent damn near every pick on defense.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-06-2013, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Then there are basically 2 positions in this draft where you can realistically start from day 1. CB and DE.

We all know there is basically a 3 year curve for a defensive lineman.....so his first year is going to be meh at best. And taking a CB at #1 to be your #2 is a little rough. What's the learning curve for a rookie CB? How'd Joe Haden do his first year? Patrick Peterson (remove his PR/KR stats)?

This is exactly why I believe Dorsey will do anything in his power to trade back, even if that means accepting something well below "value".

Any team picking #1 in 2013 needs to draft a guy that starts immediately. The #2 pick will certain get an immediate starter, as will most teams from 3 to probably 32.

Only the Chiefs are going to pick a guy at #1 that has to sit?

Dark Horse · 03-06-2013, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

That BPA strategy sounds great and all. It really does.

It's perfect when the team's foundation is in place. When you've got your LT, good starters on defense, and that other thing. QB. Yeah, that's pretty important.

Going to a BPA draft strategy is ****ing reeruned if you don't have a QB.

I would think the QB position would get several bonus points in anyones rating system so who's to say a QB is not at the top of their draft board.

Hog's Gone Fishin · 03-06-2013, 01:45 PM

I just don't understand why so many want us to use 1.1 on a backup QB.

1.1 should be an immediate starter with probowl potential.

**Canofbier** · 03-06-2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

I just don't understand why so many want us to use 1.1 on a backup QB.

1.1 should be an immediate starter with probowl potential.

We wouldn't be drafting a QB at 1.1 to be a "backup", and you know that. If that's what happened, the Chiefs would be grooming him to be the face of our franchise for the decade or more to come, hopefully. Although it's been a trend in the past few years for rookie QBs to start immediately, it's not the only option.

Dark Horse · 03-06-2013, 01:50 PM

Don't be too hard on Hog Farmer it's possible his fingers may be slippery and he typed that by mistake.

Hog's Gone Fishin · 03-06-2013, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canofbier

We wouldn't be drafting a QB at 1.1 to be a "backup", and you know that. If that's what happened, the Chiefs would be grooming him to be the face of our franchise for the decade or more to come, hopefully. Although it's been a trend in the past few years for rookie QBs to start immediately, it's not the only option.

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.

Pasta Little Brioni · 03-06-2013, 01:54 PM

Stick to "milking" pigs

**BossChief** · 03-06-2013, 01:58 PM

The Giants are a perfect example. They signed Kurt Warner to a 2 year deal and started him for the opener and te first 9 games. They even had a winning record when they pulled him and Eli went 1-6 the rest of the year.

**RealSNR** · 03-06-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

This is exactly why I believe Dorsey will do anything in his power to trade back, even if that means accepting something well below "value".

Any team picking #1 in 2013 needs to draft a guy that starts immediately. The #2 pick will certain get an immediate starter, as will most teams from 3 to probably 32.

Only the Chiefs are going to pick a guy at #1 that has to sit?

Blame it on the lineup of players coming out. No Ndamukong Suhs. No Von Millers. No Calvin Johnsons. Sorry, that's the way the ball bounces.

Better to draft a QB and let him sit for a year than have to suffer through history alongside the 2008 Miami Dolphins as the only team dumb enough to pick a LT at #1 if you are slightly skiddish on the playability of the QBs this year.

And before you bring up Orlando Pace, remember that Jake Long and Luke Joeckel are not even ****ing CLOSE to being the kind of player Orlando Pace is or was.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-06-2013, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peyton's Princess

Eli Manning sat and that worked out pretty well...

I'm not naive enough to think Geno will be the pick at #1 but if they do draft him and sit him for a year, even 3rd string him a la Palmer, I'm 100% ok with that and would be a happy camper all season long regardless of W/L results.

Eli played in nine and started seven games his rookie season.

Coughlin later stated that he should have started from day one.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-06-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

Blame it on the lineup of players coming out. No Ndamukong Suhs. No Von Millers. No Calvin Johnsons. Sorry, that's the way the ball bounces.

Better to draft a QB and let him sit for a year than have to suffer through history alongside the 2008 Miami Dolphins as the only team dumb enough to pick a LT at #1 if you are slightly skiddish on the playability of the QBs this year.

And before you bring up Orlando Pace, remember that Jake Long and Luke Joeckel are not even ****ing CLOSE to being the kind of player Orlando Pace is or was.

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.

03-05-2013, 11:03 AM
Fat Elvis Sexiest Athlete Join Date: Apr 2001 Casino cash: $1501925	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: 12,396

03-06-2013, 01:34 PM	#452
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	Eli Manning sat and that worked out pretty well... I'm not naive enough to think Geno will be the pick at #1 but if they do draft him and sit him for a year, even 3rd string him a la Palmer, I'm 100% ok with that and would be a happy camper all season long regardless of W/L results.
Posts: 56,356

03-06-2013, 01:35 PM	#454
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $1874088	BPA "on our board" Surely, they set their board partially by need. Look at GBs draft history....when their defense sucked, they spent damn near every pick on defense. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,127

03-06-2013, 01:45 PM	#457
Hog's Gone Fishin Fish are scared of me Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1700477	I just don't understand why so many want us to use 1.1 on a backup QB. 1.1 should be an immediate starter with probowl potential.
Posts: 40,351

03-06-2013, 01:50 PM	#459
Dark Horse Veteran Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Kansas Casino cash: $8665015	Don't be too hard on Hog Farmer it's possible his fingers may be slippery and he typed that by mistake.
Posts: 1,383

03-06-2013, 01:54 PM	#461
Pasta Little Brioni Consuming CP souls Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: U.S.A. Casino cash: $3978880	Stick to "milking" pigs __________________ **Official TFWdemB Trivia Commisioner**
Posts: 68,534

03-06-2013, 01:58 PM	#462
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $1874088	The Giants are a perfect example. They signed Kurt Warner to a 2 year deal and started him for the opener and te first 9 games. They even had a winning record when they pulled him and Eli went 1-6 the rest of the year. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,127