Chiefs Albert/Joeckel perspective - Page 9

**cdcox** · 04-18-2013, 11:01 PM

How would you feel if the Chiefs had the #2 overall pick and packaged it and Albert for Joeckel? Because that's what the Chiefs are on the brink of doing.

#1 pick = 3000 points
#54 pick = 360 points

difference is 2640 points

#2 pick is worth 2600 points

Chiefs are going to invest 3000 - 360 = 2640 points to replace Albert with Joeckel. It could be a good deal for the Chiefs if 1) Albert is out of the league in two years, 2) Jockel is a HOFer and 3) the alternatives (like Geno) don't have very good careers.

duncan_idaho · 04-19-2013, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It's pretty obvious that the Chiefs fixed the "joke" belief by firing ***** and Crennel. The mere fact that FA's were willing to sign here before the team had even improved the next year suggests that the tarnish put on the franchise left when the New England mafia did.

FWIW, Eric Winston, Peyton Hillis, and Stanford Routt were trash when they signed here, but they weren't considered trash. So although many players possibly avoided the Chiefs b/c of *****, Manning the best example, his taint wasn't absolute.

This.

The Chiefs were a joke because they hired an arrogant, incompetent asshole to run the team. You can't blame the team/Hunt for that, as it was thought of as a slam dunk at the time of the hire.

It just didn't work.

Flushing the garbage fixed the perception issue.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

And all the great work Peterson did was done with a major flaw: No elite play at QB.

That's really untrue. Steve DeBerg played lights out in 1991. The guy threw something like 24 TD's versus 4 Int's. The Chiefs were in the AFC Championship Game due to the phenomenal play of Joe Montana. The Chiefs got "Elite" play from Grbac and Gannon in 1997.

You're making it out as if the Peterson and Schottenheimer didn't attempt to bring a championship to Kansas City, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

His method of trading for vets and attempting to get a good QB that way kept that team from ever taking advantage of the multiple All-Pros and Hall of Famers and winning the Super Bowl or even a freaking league title. Having a QB that wouldn't hurt them while ensuring they won 7-11 games.

You specfically mentioned the 90's. The Chiefs only had one losing season from 1989-1998, so I don't believe that 7 games was their floor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

As for who should they have drafted... there were guys available during the draft in the 90s (Favre, Brunell were both taken with 10-15 picks of a wasted pick for the Chiefs) they could have taken a stab at, but Peterson seemed unwilling to do it after missing on Blundin.

So, you're argument is predicated on Favre and Brunell?

**DeezNutz** · 04-19-2013, 01:54 PM

Carl's stated philosophy at the QB position was to rely upon veteran leadership, and this is not the same as striving for excellence at the position.

And don't say "Montana."

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Flushing the garbage fixed the perception issue.

No, it didn't.

Hiring Reid and Dorsey changed the perception of the franchise.

RunKC · 04-19-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Willie Roaf. The guy 3 years older than Albert that we got for a 4th/conditional 3rd, who played at a pro bowl level for 4 years.

That's the kind of move that a franchise that wants to 'win now' makes. They don't trade away their starting LT and plug in an run-of-the-mill rookie to save some bucks.

We make no sense.

They said they want to build now and the future.

Joeckel is good now and for another 10+ years. What's not to get about that?

**DeezNutz** · 04-19-2013, 01:55 PM

Oh, I'd say Pioli's taint is fairly odorous.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-19-2013, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Oh, no doubt but that shouldn't diminish the impact of John Dorsey and Andy Reid's arrival in Kansas City. Both men brought instant credibility to the Chiefs franchise and that should not be underestimated.

If they brought credibility, then why do they need to rush out and adopt a win-now model?

I agree that they fixed the perception issue, and if they did, then why rush out and sign all of these FA stopgaps?

**DeezNutz** · 04-19-2013, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

If they brought credibility, then why do they need to rush out and adopt a win-now model?

I agree that they fixed the perception issue, and if they did, then why rush out and sign all of these FA stopgaps?

Because they (Reid and Dorsey) believe in these FAs, and they're not perceived as stopgaps.

I firmly believe they view Smith as a five-year answer.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

If they brought credibility, then why do they need to rush out and adopt a win-now model?

Mandated by ownership

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I agree that they fixed the perception issue, and if they did, then why rush out and sign all of these FA stopgaps?

As opposed to leaving those holes open and not addressing them?

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-19-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunKC

They said they want to build now and the future.

Joeckel is good now and for another 10+ years. What's not to get about that?

Drafting Joeckel at this point is like refinancing your home when you have five years to pay it off, going to a ten year loan b/c your monthly payments will be less. Even that assumes that Joeckel will be as good as Albert.

**DaneMcCloud** · 04-19-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I firmly believe they view Smith as a five-year answer.

Based on what, exactly?

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-19-2013, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Because they (Reid and Dorsey) believe in these FAs, and they're not perceived as stopgaps.

I firmly believe they view Smith as a five-year answer.

I agree, and that's why I believe they will fail.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 04-19-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Mandated by ownership

As opposed to leaving those holes open and not addressing them?

I actually like a number of the FA signings. Some are awful (Devito, for example), but plugging a leaking boat with stopgaps when the entire hull needs to be redesigned is only going to cause you to have to go right back to fix the stopgaps, and there's only so much labor to fix the entirety of the boat itself.

keg in kc · 04-19-2013, 02:01 PM

I wouldn't say Peterson and Schottenchoker didn't "try" to win, they just went about it in completely the wrong way. Until 2001 when Carl threw up his hands and said "okay, let's shift everything to the offense!" and let his buddy grampa dick run things. Then in 2006 things shifted right back to the 90s philosophy, and they've so far not shifted back. The philosophy being "play not to lose", with the quarterback, excluding Montana and Green, being a manager tasked primarily with not ****ing up.

And ironically, Trent Green and Montana were sort of the exceptions that prove the rule, the aberrant successes in the face of the franchise's approach at QB.

Basically with Alex Smith they're doing the exact same thing that's prevented them from winning a playoff game since 1993. They're putting a manager out there and tasking him with not screwing up. They're taking a cast-off from elsewhere (and paying far too much for him, yet again, another franchise trend) and hoping that the team as a whole is talented enough that they can win if he mitigates his mistakes.

An approach which didn't work in any meaningful way for them for most of the 90s, and an approach that most likely cannot and will not work in today's quarterback-driven league.

duncan_idaho · 04-19-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That's really untrue. Steve DeBerg played lights out in 1991. The guy threw something like 24 TD's versus 4 Int's. The Chiefs were in the AFC Championship Game due to the phenomenal play of Joe Montana. The Chiefs got "Elite" play from Grbac and Gannon in 1997.

You're making it out as if the Peterson and Schottenheimer didn't attempt to bring a championship to Kansas City, and nothing could be further from the truth.

You specfically mentioned the 90's. The Chiefs only had one losing season from 1989-1998, so I don't believe that 7 games was their floor.

So, you're argument is predicated on Favre and Brunell?

Your use of smilies is once again impressive.

Deberg had a Matt Cassel/2010-ish 1990 season, working off the Chiefs feared running game and throwing a bunch of play-action passes a game. It still resulted in a first-round playoff loss when matched up against a team with an elite QB. He was pretty medicore again in 1991. Retread.

Montana was an aggressive play, and I won't criticize it. It would have been an even better play if they'd tried to develop a young QB behind him rather than sitting on laurels.

Grbac was certainly not elite in 1997. QB rating under 80. Gannon was not elite that year, either.

Peterson and Marty wanted to win here, obviously. But their plan was drastically flawed because they tried again and again to strike gold on retread QBs and failed. Bringing in vet QBs to ensure they had good leadership at the position and never were in danger of being out of playoff contention was great for attendance and the team's overall record during the decade. But it didn't help them get to the ultimate prize.

The one time they found a retread who actually COULD be an elite QB (Gannon), they ran him off without giving him a real shot.

04-18-2013, 11:01 PM
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $2341769	Albert/Joeckel perspective How would you feel if the Chiefs had the #2 overall pick and packaged it and Albert for Joeckel? Because that's what the Chiefs are on the brink of doing. #1 pick = 3000 points #54 pick = 360 points difference is 2640 points #2 pick is worth 2600 points Chiefs are going to invest 3000 - 360 = 2640 points to replace Albert with Joeckel. It could be a good deal for the Chiefs if 1) Albert is out of the league in two years, 2) Jockel is a HOFer and 3) the alternatives (like Geno) don't have very good careers.
Posts: 45,536

04-19-2013, 02:01 PM	#134
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	I wouldn't say Peterson and Schottenchoker didn't "try" to win, they just went about it in completely the wrong way. Until 2001 when Carl threw up his hands and said "okay, let's shift everything to the offense!" and let his buddy grampa dick run things. Then in 2006 things shifted right back to the 90s philosophy, and they've so far not shifted back. The philosophy being "play not to lose", with the quarterback, excluding Montana and Green, being a manager tasked primarily with not ****ing up. And ironically, Trent Green and Montana were sort of the exceptions that prove the rule, the aberrant successes in the face of the franchise's approach at QB. Basically with Alex Smith they're doing the exact same thing that's prevented them from winning a playoff game since 1993. They're putting a manager out there and tasking him with not screwing up. They're taking a cast-off from elsewhere (and paying far too much for him, yet again, another franchise trend) and hoping that the team as a whole is talented enough that they can win if he mitigates his mistakes. An approach which didn't work in any meaningful way for them for most of the 90s, and an approach that most likely cannot and will not work in today's quarterback-driven league.
Posts: 58,682