Football Peter King: You have to go back to 1997 to find a draft like this one

DJ's left nut · 02-19-2013, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

That is a well thought out post, and you make me re-think some of my position. It is just hard for me to get it out my mind seeing him overthrow balls into the ground when under pressure.

That offense was very complicated, and that is a great point. But Trent had the luxury of the best running attack this team has ever had, and among the very ever.

Well it's important to separate TrINT from Trent. He got himself so far behind the 8-ball with the fanbase here after that first season that yeah, it's easy to remember those balls got on top of and hammered into the turf.

But when he was at his apex, those 4 years from 2002-2005, man he was precise. In those 4 years he averaged damn near 8 yds/attempt. And that was when only guys like Manning and Brady were putting up numbers like that. To put it into perspective, even with weapons like Boldin and Torrey Smith, Flacco's never averaged better than 7.4 YPA and on his career is averaging 7.1. That's even with the fact that he's a very good downfield passer.

Yeah, the system helped, but even the YAC yards were a result of the fact that he was so good at hitting guys in stride and frankly he just didn't miss very often.

For a guy with a sub-standard arm to be able to hit at 8 yds/attempt means that he was firing a hell of a grouping. He was putting it in the right spot almost every time.

History, if anything, has been extremely unkind to Trent Green. We don't realize how good we had it with that guy over those 4 seasons and I think that is almost exclusively because of how quickly people soured on him in 2001.

**HemiEd** · 02-19-2013, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Well it's important to separate TrINT from Trent. He got himself so far behind the 8-ball with the fanbase here after that first season that yeah, it's easy to remember those balls got on top of and hammered into the turf.

But when he was at his apex, those 4 years from 2002-2005, man he was precise. In those 4 years he averaged damn near 8 yds/attempt. And that was when only guys like Manning and Brady were putting up numbers like that. To put it into perspective, even with weapons like Boldin and Torrey Smith, Flacco's never averaged better than 7.4 YPA and on his career is averaging 7.1. That's even with the fact that he's a very good downfield passer.

Yeah, the system helped, but even the YAC yards were a result of the fact that he was so good at hitting guys in stride and frankly he just didn't miss very often.

For a guy with a sub-standard arm to be able to hit at 8 yds/attempt means that he was firing a hell of a grouping. He was putting it in the right spot almost every time.

History, if anything, has been extremely unkind to Trent Green. We don't realize how good we had it with that guy over those 4 seasons and I think that is almost exclusively because of how quickly people soured on him in 2001.

Good points, again. I for one didn't sour on him 2001 though, as he was coming back from a horrible injury.

I just never really felt like he had the tools to carry the team. I felt he was "good enough" to be competitive. Once again, a recycled Qb, that was pretty darn good.

I am sick and tired of settling for that, after what seems like an eternal line of them. I want this team to go "all in" with a pick of their own and develop him. No more Alex Smiths, Trent Greens, Dave Kreigs, Bonos, Grbacs, Huards, Cassels, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

I am so sick of it, that if they marched Stanzi out there and went 0-16, it would be refreshing to me.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-19-2013, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I am sick and tired of settling for that, after what seems like an eternal line of them. I want this team to go "all in" with a pick of their own and develop him. No more Alex Smiths, Trent Greens, Dave Kreigs, Bonos, Grbacs, Huards, Cassels, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

See, that stuff doesn't bother me. If the Chiefs win and win in the playoffs, I couldn't care less how the QB was acquired.

Now, if the Chiefs need a QB and deliberately pass on highly rated guy, that's a different story. But if Matt Flynn or Nick Foles or Alex Smith won a Super Bowl as a Chiefs, I'd be thrilled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I am so sick of it, that if they marched Stanzi out there and went 0-16, it would be refreshing to me.

You, my friend, would likely be on the only person happy in that scenario.

**HemiEd** · 02-19-2013, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

See, that stuff doesn't bother me. If the Chiefs win and win in the playoffs, I couldn't care less how the QB was acquired.

Now, if the Chiefs need a QB and deliberately pass on highly rated guy, that's a different story. But if Matt Flynn or Nick Foles or Alex Smith won a Super Bowl as a Chiefs, I'd be thrilled.

You, my friend, would likely be on the only person happy in that scenario.

Well for the last three years we have seen HCs marching out crap behind center, trying to eeek out a win to save their ****ing job. Not giving Stanzi a legit shot.

Yeah, I am beyond the recycled QB give a **** meter, seriously. Nobody was more shocked than I when the Chiefs didn't end up with Peyton Manning. The first time I ever got really upset with the Chiefs was the Montana trade, and it has been going on to varying degrees ever since.

I will probably take a few years off if they don't draft one this year.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-19-2013, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I will probably take a few years off if they don't draft one this year.

No, you won't.

**HemiEd** · 02-20-2013, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No, you won't.

yeah, you are probably right.

htismaqe · 02-19-2013, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

See, that stuff doesn't bother me. If the Chiefs win and win in the playoffs, I couldn't care less how the QB was acquired.

Now, if the Chiefs need a QB and deliberately pass on highly rated guy, that's a different story. But if Matt Flynn or Nick Foles or Alex Smith won a Super Bowl as a Chiefs, I'd be thrilled.

I know you and I differ on this but the reason I care about how we acquire the QB is because I believe it is a factor on whether or not we can win in the first place.

The teams that are winning and winning regularly have drafted and developed their own guys.

In the 30 years or so I've been a fan, I've seen the Matt Flynn/Nick Foles/Alex Smith's come through KC. Over and over and over. I know how the story ends.

Is it completely rational or objective? No. If I were capable of looking at this in a 100% rational manner, I would have given up on this crap franchise YEARS ago.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-19-2013, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I know you and I differ on this but the reason I care about how we acquire the QB is because I believe it is a factor on whether or not we can win in the first place.

I have always believe that the only way to consistently win Super Bowls is through the draft. And it's not just QB's, it's stockpiling CB's, DE's, LB's, WR's, etc. Perimeter guys that make a true difference in the game.

But at this point in time, if the Chiefs can acquire a QB that is ready to lead this team to the playoffs for the next 3-4 years consistently, I don't care how he's acquired.

This teams has so many pieces in place that IF they can acquire an accurate passer and leader on offense, this team can make some noise. Maybe, just maybe, some serious noise.

So as I've stated before, if it's Foles or Smith or Flynn or G. Smith or someone else, I'm in. This team is ready.

Especially on defense.

htismaqe · 02-19-2013, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I have always believe that the only way to consistently win Super Bowls is through the draft. And it's not just QB's, it's stockpiling CB's, DE's, LB's, WR's, etc. Perimeter guys that make a true difference in the game.

But at this point in time, if the Chiefs can acquire a QB that is ready to lead this team to the playoffs for the next 3-4 years consistently, I don't care how he's acquired.

This teams has so many pieces in place that IF they can acquire an accurate passer and leader on offense, this team can make some noise. Maybe, just maybe, some serious noise.

So as I've stated before, if it's Foles or Smith or Flynn or G. Smith or someone else, I'm in. This team is ready.

Especially on defense.

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft. Flynn isn't even worth discussing. And Alex Smith's history doesn't necessarily scream "serious noise".

The 1995 team was "ready", especially on defense. This sounds EXACTLY like that. And we already know how that ended. In both 1995 AND 1997.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-19-2013, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft. Flynn isn't even worth discussing. And Alex Smith's history doesn't necessarily scream "serious noise".

The 1995 team was "ready", especially on defense. This sounds EXACTLY like that. And we already know how that ended. In both 1995 AND 1997.

Foles is unknown to you, not the head coach.

This defense is as championship ready as half the playoff contenders in 2012, if not more.

This team is ready to strike. All they need the right QB to lead them.

**BossChief** · 02-19-2013, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft. Flynn isn't even worth discussing. And Alex Smith's history doesn't necessarily scream "serious noise".

The 1995 team was "ready", especially on defense. This sounds EXACTLY like that. And we already know how that ended. In both 1995 AND 1997.

Andy Reid knows quite a bit about Foles and Dorsey knows quite a bit about Flynn.

Chris Meck · 02-20-2013, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft. Flynn isn't even worth discussing. And Alex Smith's history doesn't necessarily scream "serious noise".

The 1995 team was "ready", especially on defense. This sounds EXACTLY like that. And we already know how that ended. In both 1995 AND 1997.

Foles is less of an unknown than ANY of the QB's in the draft. He's actually got a half season or so of actual NFL football to look at.

Foles is less of an unknown than Matt Flynn. Flynn's got one game to look at, and the fact that he got outplayed by a 3rd round rookie. (True, that rookie looks pretty special, but still.) I'd be bummed if we went with Flynn.

Foles is MORE of an unknown than Alex Smith; although I think with Smith you kind of have an idea of the ceiling. Foles you have an idea where the floor is, but the ceiling is to be determined. I'd be mildly disappointed if we went with Smith. This IS the same thing we've done for going on 3 decades.

IF Reid and Dorsey aren't into G. Smith and feel like the dropoff to the Barkley/Wilson/Nassib/Dysert guys is nada, I'd not be opposed to trading a pick for Foles and taking whichever of those guys at the top of the 2nd that they like as insurance. Two young QB's (one that's ready to play and has some experience in THIS offense with THIS coach, and one that's probably not quite there yet) would bode well for the future.

Frankie · 02-20-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft.

To us, my man. Not to Reid.