Chiefs Redoing the 1989 Draft - Page 2

Crush · 01-14-2013, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well, he was absolutely awful.

If it had been Willie Roaf or Jon Ogden or Anthony Munoz, the answers might have been different.

Keep in mind, four out of the top five picks are Hall of Famers. Mandarich was the only one that was just an average player. Blame that on Madden.

I agree Dane, but my point is that there is no such thing as a safe pick. LTs are just as likely to bust as QBs.

htismaqe · 01-14-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well, he was absolutely awful.

If it had been Willie Roaf or Jon Ogden or Anthony Munoz, the answers might have been different.

Keep in mind, four out of the top five picks are Hall of Famers. Mandarich was the only one that was just an average player. Blame that on Madden.

He was an ABSOLUTE SURE THING coming out. The best tackle prospect EVER.

Ebolapox · 01-14-2013, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

He was an ABSOLUTE SURE THING coming out. The best tackle prospect EVER.

roids did his body good.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-14-2013, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

He was an ABSOLUTE SURE THING coming out. The best tackle prospect EVER.

If you believed John Madden.

I knew he was a roided out phony.

Most people, outside the NFL, knew about it. ****, I did and was in Lawrence at the time.

RippedmyFlesh · 01-14-2013, 05:12 PM

At that time with those choices I would have said Sanders. 200 yard games for him were like 100 games for everyone else. His 200 was 300.
But today I would say Aikman.

ChiefsCountry · 01-14-2013, 05:25 PM

Troy Aikman, very underrated quarterback in the scheme of things. Dallas had a hell of a team no doubt, but Aikman was the engine that made it go.

Exoter175 · 01-14-2013, 05:31 PM

Aikman was not that "Great" of a QB in my opinion. That Cowboys Dynasty was absolutely LOADED on both sides of the ball for years. I think you could have taken 10-15 other QBs in that time, and still gotten to the playoffs year in and year out. I mean, look at how many players from that period ended up in the hall of fame, crazy stuff.

This drift is interesting, because it plays on the whole "Do you draft a QB or the best talent available" argument. Much like us. Do we draft the best guy on the board, or do we take a QB? With this change in structure, you're going to take a QB despite still having needs elsewhere. I don't believe you conscientiously waste a pick, but I believe if you are certain that you can develop one of the QBs from this year into a winning QB, I think you pull the trigger.

In regards to DT, he's going to get a lot of love because we are all Chiefs homers. If you posted this on a Rams board or soemthing, undoubtedly this goes in favor of Aikman quite handsomely.

DT was hall of fame talent, but according to 99.99% of CP, you don't take a linebacker this early, even if he is hall of fame talent.

htismaqe · 01-14-2013, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exoter175

Aikman was not that "Great" of a QB in my opinion. That Cowboys Dynasty was absolutely LOADED on both sides of the ball for years. I think you could have taken 10-15 other QBs in that time, and still gotten to the playoffs year in and year out. I mean, look at how many players from that period ended up in the hall of fame, crazy stuff.

This drift is interesting, because it plays on the whole "Do you draft a QB or the best talent available" argument. Much like us. Do we draft the best guy on the board, or do we take a QB? With this change in structure, you're going to take a QB despite still having needs elsewhere. I don't believe you conscientiously waste a pick, but I believe if you are certain that you can develop one of the QBs from this year into a winning QB, I think you pull the trigger.

In regards to DT, he's going to get a lot of love because we are all Chiefs homers. If you posted this on a Rams board or soemthing, undoubtedly this goes in favor of Aikman quite handsomely.

DT was hall of fame talent, but according to 99.99% of CP, you don't take a linebacker this early, even if he is hall of fame talent.

Those Chiefs teams were built just exactly like the Cowboys.

We had the RB, we had the maulers on the line, we had the defense.

The thing we didn't have was the QB.

The choice here is obvious.

ChiefsCountry · 01-14-2013, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Those Chiefs teams were built just exactly like the Cowboys.

We had the RB, we had the maulers on the line, we had the defense.

The thing we didn't have was the QB.

The choice here is obvious.

This. End thread now.

Pasta Little Brioni · 01-14-2013, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Those Chiefs teams were built just exactly like the Cowboys.

We had the RB, we had the maulers on the line, we had the defense.

The thing we didn't have was the QB.

The choice here is obvious.

Listen to this man.

Exoter175 · 01-14-2013, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Those Chiefs teams were built just exactly like the Cowboys.

We had the RB, we had the maulers on the line, we had the defense.

The thing we didn't have was the QB.

The choice here is obvious.

Um, you're missing the part where that team isn't loaded with nearly as many hall of famers as the Cowboys team of the time. That, is why I believe Aikman is even an option in this poll. He didn't put the team on his back, and he certainly didn't go out there and win game after game after game for the cowboys. That defense, that running game, those were the reasons why they went into the playoffs year after year.

ChiefsCountry · 01-14-2013, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exoter175

That defense, that running game, those were the reasons why they went into the playoffs year after year.

And Aikman is why they won in the playoffs year after year.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-14-2013, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Those Chiefs teams were built just exactly like the Cowboys.

We had the RB, we had the maulers on the line, we had the defense.

The thing we didn't have was the QB.

The choice here is obvious.

The Chiefs had the RB for about 3 season after he was drafted. Them Marty began his draft/free agency rampage on running backs.

And I'm sorry, Aikman wouldn't have done dick under Joe Pendry.

**Rain Man** · 01-14-2013, 05:39 PM

I may have misunderstood the question. Which of the following are we doing?

1. Pretending it's 1989 and we're drafting for the 1989 team with no hindsight about the players' careers?

2. Pretending it's 1989 and we're drafting for the 1989 team with 20/20 hindsight about the players' careers?

3. Pretending that it's 2013 and we're drafting for the 2013 team with no hindsight about the players' careers?

4. Pretending it's 2013 and we're drafting for the 2013 team with 20/20 hindsight about the players' careers?

I was assuming Option 2, in which case you take 15,000 rushing yards at 5.0 yards per attempt with a whole lot of fun.

htismaqe · 01-14-2013, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I was assuming Option 2, in which case you take 15,000 rushing yards at 5.0 yards per attempt with a whole lot of fun.

Don't forget 5 playoff appearances in 10 seasons and 1 playoff win.

View Poll Results: With the No. 1 pick in the 1989 Draft, who do you think the Chiefs should take?
Troy Aikman	30	37.97%
Tony Mandarich	4	5.06%
Barry Sanders	12	15.19%
Derrick Thomas	31	39.24%
Deion Sanders	2	2.53%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll

01-14-2013, 05:12 PM	#5
RippedmyFlesh Veteran Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: New York Casino cash: $10005817	At that time with those choices I would have said Sanders. 200 yard games for him were like 100 games for everyone else. His 200 was 300. But today I would say Aikman.
Posts: 4,848

01-14-2013, 05:25 PM	#6
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $2108752	Troy Aikman, very underrated quarterback in the scheme of things. Dallas had a hell of a team no doubt, but Aikman was the engine that made it go.
Posts: 49,716

01-14-2013, 05:31 PM	#7
Exoter175 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Olathe Casino cash: $10003166	Aikman was not that "Great" of a QB in my opinion. That Cowboys Dynasty was absolutely LOADED on both sides of the ball for years. I think you could have taken 10-15 other QBs in that time, and still gotten to the playoffs year in and year out. I mean, look at how many players from that period ended up in the hall of fame, crazy stuff. This drift is interesting, because it plays on the whole "Do you draft a QB or the best talent available" argument. Much like us. Do we draft the best guy on the board, or do we take a QB? With this change in structure, you're going to take a QB despite still having needs elsewhere. I don't believe you conscientiously waste a pick, but I believe if you are certain that you can develop one of the QBs from this year into a winning QB, I think you pull the trigger. In regards to DT, he's going to get a lot of love because we are all Chiefs homers. If you posted this on a Rams board or soemthing, undoubtedly this goes in favor of Aikman quite handsomely. DT was hall of fame talent, but according to 99.99% of CP, you don't take a linebacker this early, even if he is hall of fame talent.
Posts: 2,327

01-14-2013, 05:39 PM	#14
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3108491 VARSITY	I may have misunderstood the question. Which of the following are we doing? 1. Pretending it's 1989 and we're drafting for the 1989 team with no hindsight about the players' careers? 2. Pretending it's 1989 and we're drafting for the 1989 team with 20/20 hindsight about the players' careers? 3. Pretending that it's 2013 and we're drafting for the 2013 team with no hindsight about the players' careers? 4. Pretending it's 2013 and we're drafting for the 2013 team with 20/20 hindsight about the players' careers? I was assuming Option 2, in which case you take 15,000 rushing yards at 5.0 yards per attempt with a whole lot of fun. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,598