Babb: Chiefs can look to playoff teams for picks that clicked at QB

[Tribal Warfare]

Chiefs can look to playoff teams for picks that clicked at QB (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chiefs/story/986039.html)
By KENT BABB
The Kansas City Star

PITTSBURGH | Another draft came and went in Kansas City, and another year passed without the Chiefs selecting a quarterback in the first round. And they’ll spend yet another offseason watching while first-round quarterbacks guide the teams that drafted them deep into the postseason.

The Chiefs bypassed a passer in 2008 because they believed Brodie Croyle was their man. He was a third-round pick in ’06, and coach Herm Edwards wasn’t bashful about reminding observers that young quarterbacks blossom in their third seasons.

Then Croyle injured his shoulder. Then his knee. And Damon Huard suffered a series of mysterious injuries that led to Tyler Thigpen becoming an unlikely Kansas City celebrity. As the Chiefs begin what is certain to be another pivotal offseason, they’re again faced with an important choice: If a top quarterback is available when Kansas City chooses at No. 3 overall, will the Chiefs pull the trigger?

“I know over the course of the season they went through a number of quarterbacks,” new general manager Scott Pioli said of the Chiefs at his introductory news conference Wednesday. “With the talent, obviously there needs to be some changes on the football team. With the way the team performed, there needs to be changes.”

While Pioli ponders what he’ll do with the team’s top choice, Kansas City will again be watching the postseason instead of participating in it. They’ll see that all four of the teams still alive in the NFL playoffs — Arizona, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Baltimore — used their top pick on a quarterback within the last decade. Cardinals quarterback Matt Leinart, drafted in 2006, is Kurt Warner’s backup; the other first-rounders start for their teams.

The last three Super Bowl winners, the Steelers, Indianapolis and the New York Giants, had a first-round quarterback in their starting lineup.

In the meantime, the Chiefs have tried to address other needs. They haven’t chosen a quarterback with their first pick since taking Todd Blackledge in 1983, and they have one playoff victory in those nearly 26 years to show for it. Their highest quarterback selections since then came in the second round, when the Chiefs took Mike Elkins in 1989 and Matt Blundin in ’92. Neither player started a game for Kansas City.

At his news conference Wednesday, Pioli addressed the need for a franchise quarterback but wouldn’t reveal hints into his line of thinking. But with an unstable crop awaiting him at Arrowhead Stadium, a top-five pick and a league that seems to require a star quarterback for success, the Chiefs’ top executive could be counting down the days until free agency begins or the draft commences.

If he watches Sunday’s AFC championship game, he’ll see a pair of former small-college stars and first-round quarterbacks, Pittsburgh’s Ben Roethlisberger and Baltimore’s Joe Flacco, playing for a spot in the Super Bowl.

Perhaps the most unlikely star is a quarterback the Chiefs could have drafted last year — with either of their two first-round choices. Flacco went No. 18 overall, after Kansas City had selected defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey and offensive tackle Branden Albert, and including the playoffs Flacco is 13-5 as Baltimore’s starter.

“You can’t go out there on the field and say, ‘Wow, what am I doing out here?’ ” Flacco said this week. “You’ve got to act like you’re supposed to be here, and that’s part of what being a quarterback is.

“You act like you’re going to get the job done and you know that you’re going to get the job done. And as long as you think that way, then you give yourself the best shot at getting the job done. The bottom line is if you don’t get it done, then you don’t. And I can deal with that. It’s going to happen eventually.”

Flacco has gotten his teammates’ attention, and his selection — 15 spots after Atlanta took another playoff quarterback, Matt Ryan, with its first pick — has made Baltimore’s front office and coaches look brilliant.

“The things that he’s been able to do this year and the things that he’s been able to handle,” Ravens tight end Todd Heap said, “it’s pretty incredible.

“When it comes down to it, when you need a play to be made, we have confidence in him.”

That’s something the Chiefs couldn’t say last year. Thigpen was solid, but he was erratic at times and never showed the dependability that coaches hoped he would. Edwards kept saying Thigpen was similar to a rookie and that he was still learning, but Pioli might not be willing to wait Thigpen out.

This year’s quarterback class appears solid, with Georgia’s Matt Stafford and Southern California’s Mark Sanchez expected to be early-round picks. Coaches and personnel executives say that selecting a quarterback is the biggest gamble in the draft.

Teams wonder, even after all their scouting and interviews and research, whether they’ll get a quality passer such as Ben Roethlisberger or an uncertain one such as Tennessee’s Vince Young. Such inexactness might explain why the Chiefs have been reluctant to spend a top pick on a passer over all those years.

Pioli, though, has an impressive record as an executive who can spot future stars. While he was in New England, he drafted Tom Brady in the sixth round in 2000, and five years later, he took Matt Cassell in the seventh.

Pioli has plenty of time to decide whether the Chiefs will snap a longstanding tradition and select a quarterback with their first pick.

While he waits …

“I’m getting ready to play in my biggest game,” Flacco said.

[ChiefsCountry]

This is a duh article from the Star.

[DeezNutz]

This is a duh article from the Star.

It's a mail-it-in Friday.

[OnTheWarpath15]

It's a mail-it-in Friday.

This was their backup article in the event Herm didn't get fired.

[Extra Point]

I got more out of duh than what Lard-lock has put down.

[J Diddy]

wow how did we get to the afc championship game with only one playoff victory?

[mikey23545]

Yeah, McNabb finished 14th in the NFL in passing, Flacco 22nd, and Roethlisberger 24th...Obviously, one just cannot win without one of these "star" first round QB's on the team....

I wonder if it might matter that Pittsburgh, Philly and Baltimore finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd in team defense???
:rolleyes:

[reiko57]

the chiefs have picked people like ryan sims and tamba hali in the first round of nfl drafts

you cant change the past, you can only start fixing things from right now, take a chance on a legit franchise qb, look how badly we've missed we're due to get one right.. dont waste it on a cornerback

[OnTheWarpath15]

Yeah, McNabb finished 14th in the NFL in passing, Flacco 22nd, and Roethlisberger 24th...Obviously, one just cannot win without one of these "star" first round QB's on the team....

I wonder if it might matter that Pittsburgh, Philly and Baltimore finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd in team defense???
:rolleyes:

Nah.

According to some here, all you need to do is draft a QB in the Top 10, kick your feet up, and watch the Lombardi's roll in.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

This is a duh article from the Star.

This article should be PM'd to the usual cast of idiots.

[mikey23545]

Nah.

According to some here, all you need to do is draft a QB in the Top 10, kick your feet up, and watch the Lombardi's roll in.

And if you repeat it often enough it really does come true....

There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place...

[DeezNutz]

This was their backup article in the event Herm didn't get fired.

ROFL

"Luckily I have this lil' baby right here..." /Babb/

[greyhoodie]

The current GM of Chiefs has never drafted a QB in the first two rounds of the draft. And his post-season bling comes from a QB he drafted at 199.

[siberian khatru]

In the meantime, the Chiefs have tried to address other needs. They haven’t chosen a quarterback with their first pick since taking Todd Blackledge in 1983, and they have one playoff victory in those nearly 26 years to show for it.

Oops. Editor on aisle 5, please.

As bad as we are, we have 3 playoff victories in 26 years -- 1 in 1991, 2 in 1993.

[shaneo69]

"Perhaps the most unlikely star is a quarterback the Chiefs could have drafted last year — with either of their two first-round choices. Flacco went No. 18 overall, after Kansas City had selected defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey and offensive tackle Branden Albert, and including the playoffs Flacco is 13-5 as Baltimore’s starter."

What a stupid statement. I think we would've gone 0-16 with Flacco as our starter---he sucks balls. McNair went 13-3 with that defense two years ago. It's like the people who think Rex Ryan will be a great HC because of his success with the Ravens. Yeah, uh, Marvin Lewis and Mike Nolan had a little success with those players too. I'm guessing Rex Ryan will be about as successful at being a HC as Gunther was.

[chiefzilla1501]

The interesting thing is, though, that Pioli does not have a history of using first round picks on QBs. Last year, they drafted Kevin O'Connell in the 3rd round and that was the highest he's ever used on a QB. Cassell was a complete nobody and for some reason, Brady was never highly coveted going into the draft.

But then again, Pioli has almost never had a chance to use a very high draft pick.

It will be interesting to see. I don't think the answer's that obvious. Based on his history, Pioli seems to be a guy who thinks he can get tremendous value out of a later round QB.

[el borracho]

Nah.

According to some here, all you need to do is draft a QB in the Top 10, kick your feet up, and watch the Lombardi's roll in.

Agreed. This article totally ignores the fact that 3 of the 4 remaining playoff teams are named after birds. Obviously, the Chiefs need to draft a top 10 QB and change their name. How about the Kansas City Kiwis.

http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/birds/kiwi-bird-stuffed-f705.jpg

[DrRyan]

wow how did we get to the afc championship game with only one playoff victory?

Uhhhmmmmmmmmmm, first round bye anyone? How many playoff games have the Steelers won this post-season to be playing in the AFC Championship game?

[the Talking Can]

Nah.

According to some here, all you need to do is draft a QB in the Top 10, kick your feet up, and watch the Lombardi's roll in.

there is - literally - not one person who has ever said such a thing....

amazing how crazy the mere idea of a Qb makes KC fans....

we've tried it every way but with a QB, for twenty years, and I guess we're supposed to watch another 20 years worth of Superbowls won by 1st round QBs....

[milkman]

Nah.

According to some here, all you need to do is draft a QB in the Top 10, kick your feet up, and watch the Lombardi's roll in.

I know that this post isn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to respond.

The fact aren't any guarantees when you select a QB in the top 10, but the chances of finding a franchise QB are higher.

Regardless of where we find a Qb, whether in teh first round or the 7th round, the importance of getting that QB can not be overlooked.

While it's true that great defenses can, and have won championships, it is alos true that the teams that have franchise QBs and dominating defenses complimenting each other have been dynastic teams.

The Packers of the 60s, the Dolphins and Steelers of the 70s, the 9ers of the 80s, the 'Boys of 90s, and most recently the Pats of this decade all had franchise QBs.

I want a great defense, one that plays at a level of the Chiefs of the 60s.

But I also understand that to be contenders year in and year out, rather than pretenders like the Chiefs of the 90s, you have to have a stable, franchise QB.

That means that I would pull the trigger on a first round QB if I believe that he is the future at the position.

[chiefzilla1501]

I know that this post isn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to respond.

The fact aren't any guarantees when you select a QB in the top 10, but the chances of finding a franchise QB are higher.

Regardless of where we find a Qb, whether in teh first round or the 7th round, the importance of getting that QB can not be overlooked.

While it's true that great defenses can, and have won championships, it is alos true that the teams that have franchise QBs and dominating defenses complimenting each other have been dynastic teams.

The Packers of the 60s, the Dolphins and Steelers of the 70s, the 9ers of the 80s, the 'Boys of 90s, and most recently the Pats of this decade all had franchise QBs.

I want a great defense, one that plays at a level of the Chiefs of the 60s.

But I also understand that to be contenders year in and year out, rather than pretenders like the Chiefs of the 90s, you have to have a stable, franchise QB.

That means that I would pull the trigger on a first round QB if I believe that he is the future at the position.

You pretty much nailed it. But I think the knock is moreso on people who have suggested that the only way to win a Super Bowl is a first round QB, and there have been many who have said that.

You are 100% right that your chances of finding a franchise QB are much higher in the first round. But in terms of the sheer # of first round picks deep in the playoffs, I would argue very strongly that it's an extremely skewed statistic. First round QBs succeed at a far higher rate because they are given the chance and the time to succeed that lower round draft picks do not. Eli Manning and Kyle Boller are allowed to play piss-poor football for multiple seasons. Guys like Matt Leinart and JP Losman win starting jobs over far more qualified backups not because they earned it, but because the team refuses to give up on their first round QB investment.

So... my argument would be that if 2nd or 3rd or 4th round QBs were given the same amount of patience and opportunity, I'd have to think that the numbers would even out a bit more. Not all the way, but a bit more.

[OnTheWarpath15]

I know that this post isn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to respond.

The fact aren't any guarantees when you select a QB in the top 10, but the chances of finding a franchise QB are higher.

Regardless of where we find a Qb, whether in teh first round or the 7th round, the importance of getting that QB can not be overlooked.

While it's true that great defenses can, and have won championships, it is alos true that the teams that have franchise QBs and dominating defenses complimenting each other have been dynastic teams.

The Packers of the 60s, the Dolphins and Steelers of the 70s, the 9ers of the 80s, the 'Boys of 90s, and most recently the Pats of this decade all had franchise QBs.

I want a great defense, one that plays at a level of the Chiefs of the 60s.

But I also understand that to be contenders year in and year out, rather than pretenders like the Chiefs of the 90s, you have to have a stable, franchise QB.

That means that I would pull the trigger on a first round QB if I believe that he is the future at the position.

You're right, it wasn't directed at you. :p

You can't argue this point, however:

A QB needs a defense much more than the defense needs a QB.

Show me how many teams have won the Super Bowl with a below average defense. Most were rated Top 10.

Meanwhile there are several teams that won a SB with a below average QB.

I agree, it's a necessary partnership - but to say, as people around here do, that all you need is a QB, and all your problems are solved, is retarded.

[OnTheWarpath15]

You pretty much nailed it. But I think the knock is moreso on people who have suggested that the only way to win a Super Bowl is a first round QB, and there have been many who have said that.

You are 100% right that your chances of finding a franchise QB are much higher in the first round. But in terms of the sheer # of first round picks deep in the playoffs, I would argue very strongly that it's an extremely skewed statistic. First round QBs succeed at a far higher rate because they are given the chance and the time to succeed that lower round draft picks do not. Eli Manning and Kyle Boller are allowed to play piss-poor football for multiple seasons. Guys like Matt Leinart and JP Losman win starting jobs over far more qualified backups not because they earned it, but because the team refuses to give up on their first round QB investment.

So... my argument would be that if 2nd or 3rd or 4th round QBs were given the same amount of patience and opportunity, I'd have to think that the numbers would even out a bit more. Not all the way, but a bit more.



This.

Had Eli Manning been a 2nd or 3rd round pick, his ass would have been run out of town his 2nd season - and there wouldn't have been that 6 game run where he actually looked like a franchise QB - only to return to his average self after winning a SB.

[greyhoodie]

You pretty much nailed it. But I think the knock is moreso on people who have suggested that the only way to win a Super Bowl is a first round QB, and there have been many who have said that.

You are 100% right that your chances of finding a franchise QB are much higher in the first round. But in terms of the sheer # of first round picks deep in the playoffs, I would argue very strongly that it's an extremely skewed statistic. First round QBs succeed at a far higher rate because they are given the chance and the time to succeed that lower round draft picks do not. Eli Manning and Kyle Boller are allowed to play piss-poor football for multiple seasons. Guys like Matt Leinart and JP Losman win starting jobs over far more qualified backups not because they earned it, but because the team refuses to give up on their first round QB investment.

So... my argument would be that if 2nd or 3rd or 4th round QBs were given the same amount of patience and opportunity, I'd have to think that the numbers would even out a bit more. Not all the way, but a bit more.

I would have to agree. Lets say KC drafts a QB at #3 and signs him for 6 year $40 million. Then either way if he is the next Tom Brady or the biggest bust of the draft they pretty much have to play him in 2010. On the other hand if you grab a guy in the third round and he sucks the next year you try someone else.

[milkman]

You pretty much nailed it. But I think the knock is moreso on people who have suggested that the only way to win a Super Bowl is a first round QB, and there have been many who have said that.

You are 100% right that your chances of finding a franchise QB are much higher in the first round. But in terms of the sheer # of first round picks deep in the playoffs, I would argue very strongly that it's an extremely skewed statistic. First round QBs succeed at a far higher rate because they are given the chance and the time to succeed that lower round draft picks do not. Eli Manning and Kyle Boller are allowed to play piss-poor football for multiple seasons. Guys like Matt Leinart and JP Losman win starting jobs over far more qualified backups not because they earned it, but because the team refuses to give up on their first round QB investment.

So... my argument would be that if 2nd or 3rd or 4th round QBs were given the same amount of patience and opportunity, I'd have to think that the numbers would even out a bit more. Not all the way, but a bit more.

The fact remains, however, that teams like the Ravens and Bucs are anomalies.

Looking back on the SB through the years, the teams that win are teams that have both an outstanding defense and a stable QB situation (along with other pieces).

[milkman]

This.

Had Eli Manning been a 2nd or 3rd round pick, his ass would have been run out of town his 2nd season - and there wouldn't have been that 6 game run where he actually looked like a franchise QB - only to return to his average self after winning a SB.

If Eli Manning had been a 2nd or 3rd round pick, he likely wouldn't have been on the field in his first, and possibly second year.

This is the mistake I think teams make.

They invest a truckload of money on high first round QBs, then succumb to the pressure of getting them on the field right away.

I would be thrilled to get either Stafford or Sanchez with our 3rd overall, but I would hope to hell that Pioli and whoever the HC is has the nads to stand up to the pressure and let the kid sit on the bench and learn and grow for at least a season.

I really think that in some cases you ruin a kid by starting him too early.

[RINGLEADER]

Yeah, McNabb finished 14th in the NFL in passing, Flacco 22nd, and Roethlisberger 24th...Obviously, one just cannot win without one of these "star" first round QB's on the team....

I wonder if it might matter that Pittsburgh, Philly and Baltimore finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd in team defense???
:rolleyes:

Exactly.

We could have Peyton Manning and, between the coaching ineptitude, dropped passes at key moments, and terrible defense, we might have won 1-2 more games last season.

[OnTheWarpath15]

If Eli Manning had been a 2nd or 3rd round pick, he likely wouldn't have been on the field in his first, and possibly second year.

This is the mistake I think teams make.

They invest a truckload of money on high first round QBs, then succumb to the pressure of getting them on the field right away.

I would be thrilled to get either Stafford or Sanchez with our 3rd overall, but I would hope to hell that Pioli and whoever the HC is has the nads to stand up to the pressure and let the kid sit on the bench and learn and grow for at least a season.

I really think that in some cases you ruin a kid by starting him too early.

This is where we part ways.

If you're picked in the Top 5, you better be strong enough, mentally and physically to play right away. Those attributes make up a large part of the reason you're going Top 5 to begin with.

What I think happens, is that teams are desperate for a QB, and ignore some of these traits. Guys like Carr, Akili Smith, Leaf, etc don't belong in the Top 5. They had no leadership ability, nor the mental toughness necessary.

Why is is that Troy Aikman could overcome adversity, but David Carr couldn't?

You're ruining the kid by taking him Top 5 when he's not deserving of it and putting pressure on him he can't handle, not just playing him early.

[milkman]

This is where we part ways.

If you're picked in the Top 5, you better be strong enough, mentally and physically to play right away. Those attributes make up a large part of the reason you're going Top 5 to begin with.

What I think happens, is that teams are desperate for a QB, and ignore some of these traits. Guys like Carr, Akili Smith, Leaf, etc don't belong in the Top 5. They had no leadership ability, nor the mental toughness necessary.

Why is is that Troy Aikman could overcome adversity, but David Carr couldn't?

You're ruining the kid by taking him Top 5 when he's not deserving of it and putting pressure on him he can't handle, not just playing him early.

You have a point, but I you also have to take into account that these are still just kids.

This is why I like Sanchez a little better than Stafford.

You can see the maturity and composure in the way he carries himself, and the way he handles pressure on the field.
He's the guy I think can overcome the hurdles in his develoment emotionally.

I don't think that Stafford has that kind of maturity yet.
But I won't pass on him in the draft, because he has all the tools physcially, and while he still has to mature, he seems to be a bright kid that has the mental tools to grow.

I'd take him and sit him for a year, because he has so much upside, and a year on the bench would give him the chance to grow and mature.

[Danman]

I know that this post isn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to respond.

The fact aren't any guarantees when you select a QB in the top 10, but the chances of finding a franchise QB are higher.

Regardless of where we find a Qb, whether in teh first round or the 7th round, the importance of getting that QB can not be overlooked.

While it's true that great defenses can, and have won championships, it is alos true that the teams that have franchise QBs and dominating defenses complimenting each other have been dynastic teams.

The Packers of the 60s, the Dolphins and Steelers of the 70s, the 9ers of the 80s, the 'Boys of 90s, and most recently the Pats of this decade all had franchise QBs.

I want a great defense, one that plays at a level of the Chiefs of the 60s.

But I also understand that to be contenders year in and year out, rather than pretenders like the Chiefs of the 90s, you have to have a stable, franchise QB.

That means that I would pull the trigger on a first round QB if I believe that he is the future at the position.

I think you nailed it too. Of coarse you can find a QB in a different round than the first and I'm sure Pioli will do just that in a different year. However, I think this year with the potential 1st rounders and our draft position, the opportunity to pick a QB is too great to pass up-I think we're just stupid to do so.

How many "we suck because we didn't draft Sanchez/Stafford" threads are we gonna see on Chiefsplanet in the following years if we don't?

How many Dammit Scott posts?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

The current GM of Chiefs has never drafted a QB in the first two rounds of the draft. And his post-season bling comes from a QB he drafted at 199.

I'm also willing to bet that he never had a top 5 position/picking order in those first and second rounds.

[milkman]

I'm also willing to bet that he never had a top 5 position/picking order in those first and second rounds.

And he has never gone into a draft with such standout QBs like Tyler Thigpen, Quinn Gray and Ingle Martin.

[Mecca]

How many good/great defensive players are taken out of the 1st round...now how about QB's..

There ya go, it's not that anyone says hey we need this and not that it's playing the odds of where you can get things at.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

And he has never gone into a draft with such standout QBs like Tyler Thigpen, Quinn Gray and Ingle Martin.

LMAO They just reached some kind of deal with Martin this week before Pioli got there. Herm and Carl; Masters of the Blue Light Special FA Acquisition.

Studebaker'd AGAIN!!!

How many good/great defensive players are taken out of the 1st round...now how about QB's..

There ya go, it's not that anyone says hey we need this and not that it's playing the odds of where you can get things at.

Even someone as hard headed as myself could finally understand the concept of Position and Value.

How do people not get this?

[chiefzilla1501]

I think you nailed it too. Of coarse you can find a QB in a different round than the first and I'm sure Pioli will do just that in a different year. However, I think this year with the potential 1st rounders and our draft position, the opportunity to pick a QB is too great to pass up-I think we're just stupid to do so.

How many "we suck because we didn't draft Sanchez/Stafford" threads are we gonna see on Chiefsplanet in the following years if we don't?

How many Dammit Scott posts?

This is where I disagree. I am not that high on the QBs coming out of this year's draft. I don't think you take a QB because you feel compelled to take a QB. You take a QB that high if you're sure he can be a solid QB for you in years to come.

If there was an absolute no-brainer, I could understand. But so far, Pioli has hit on two late second day picks and I don't see why he wouldn't be convinced that he can hit on a third. The good thing about Pioli is, he's good enough to find good QBs in the later rounds, so I don't think he'll pull the trigger on a top 5 QB unless he's absolutely convinced of his potential.

[milkman]

This is where I disagree. I am not that high on the QBs coming out of this year's draft. I don't think you take a QB because you feel compelled to take a QB. You take a QB that high if you're sure he can be a solid QB for you in years to come.

If there was an absolute no-brainer, I could understand. But so far, Pioli has hit on two late second day picks and I don't see why he wouldn't be convinced that he can hit on a third. The good thing about Pioli is, he's good enough to find good QBs in the later rounds, so I don't think he'll pull the trigger on a top 5 QB unless he's absolutely convinced of his potential.

No one is saying to take Stafford or Sanchez because we feel compelled to take one.

Those of us who think either would be the choice at #3 are convinced of their potential.

I'm convinced that both of these guys have the potential to be outstanding NFL QBs.

I think that Warpath is convinced of Sanchez's potential, so he would take him at #3, while he isn't convinced of Stafford's, so he'd pass.

I wouldn't have taken Bradford at 3, because I am not convinced that he has the same kind of potential that either Sanchez or Stafford has.

[chiefzilla1501]

LMAO They just reached some kind of deal with Martin this week before Pioli got there. Herm and Carl; Masters of the Blue Light Special FA Acquisition.

Studebaker'd AGAIN!!!



Even someone as hard headed as myself could finally understand the concept of Position and Value.

How do people not get this?

I understand where he's coming from. Sometimes positional value can also overrate the top on the board. A #1 picking team ALWAYS has to consider taking a QB. For example, Alex Smith was the #1 pick in his draft because he was a QB. If he was in the same draft class as Eli, Philip Rivers, or Big Ben, no freaking way would he be a first round pick.

What I love about "the Patriot Way" is that Pioli and the Pats have never believed in taking a player of high positional value with a high pick because that's what you're supposed to do. They believe the best value is found in the middle to late first round, and will trade down to get there if they have to. Why? Because that's the sweet spot for taking LBs and DBs and Guards and Centers. When you look at their first round picks, most of them were spent on positions of lower positional value. TEs, Guards, Centers, DBs, LBs, RBs--that's been their history.

When you have a guy who knows how to draft well, trading down, getting a top-flight player, and getting an extra pick or two on the side can pay enormous dividends. That's the patriot way.

[greyhoodie]

How many good/great defensive players are taken out of the 1st round...now how about QB's..

There ya go, it's not that anyone says hey we need this and not that it's playing the odds of where you can get things at.

First off are you talking great as in -- Tom Brady (6th round) or Peyton Manning (1st round).

Or are you just talking good as in Matt Cassel (7th round) or Chad Pennington (1st round)

Because the many of the great defensive players went in the first round too...

Nnamdi Asomugha
Ed Reed
Jon Beason
DeMarcus Ware
Ray Lewis
Jerod Mayo

[milkman]

This is where I disagree. I am not that high on the QBs coming out of this year's draft. I don't think you take a QB because you feel compelled to take a QB. You take a QB that high if you're sure he can be a solid QB for you in years to come.

If there was an absolute no-brainer, I could understand. But so far, Pioli has hit on two late second day picks and I don't see why he wouldn't be convinced that he can hit on a third. The good thing about Pioli is, he's good enough to find good QBs in the later rounds, so I don't think he'll pull the trigger on a top 5 QB unless he's absolutely convinced of his potential.

Oh, and Pioli has never taken a QB high because the Patriots, since he and Bellechick took over, have never ghad a need at QB like the Chiefs have now.

I don't believe that Pioli will pass on a QB in the first round because he's been lucky enough to hit on a couple of late round QBs in the past.

[chiefzilla1501]

No one is saying to take Stafford or Sanchez because we feel compelled to take one.

Those of us who think either would be the choice at #3 are convinced of their potential.

I'm convinced that both of these guys have the potential to be outstanding NFL QBs.

I think that Warpath is convinced of Sanchez's potential, so he would take him at #3, while he isn't convinced of Stafford's, so he'd pass.

I wouldn't have taken Bradford at 3, because I am not convinced that he has the same kind of potential that either Sanchez or Stafford has.

I actually like Sanchez. But these are guys who seem to have more flaws in their game than typical top-flight QBs. My point is, Pioli seems to pride himself in his ability to find sleeper QBs, so if he thinks he has a sleeper he can get in the later rounds, I wonder if he'll keep his gun holstered on that top 5 pick.

Then again, he's had Tom Brady most of his career, so we don't really know how he'll act.

[DeezNutz]

Oh, and Pioli has never taken a QB high because the Patriots, since he and Bellechick took over, have never ghad a need at QB like the Chiefs have now.

I don't believe that Pioli will pass on a QB in the first round because he's been lucky enough to hit on a couple of late round QBs in the past.

Exactly.

He's never been in a similar position.

What we do know, however, is that even if he locates a franchise QB, Pioli is going to keep drafting QB's b/c he understands the importance of the position. Really, that's all we know, and this is huge.

A GM who understands the value of the QB position. Mother****ing shit.

[OnTheWarpath15]

No one is saying to take Stafford or Sanchez because we feel compelled to take one.

Those of us who think either would be the choice at #3 are convinced of their potential.

I'm convinced that both of these guys have the potential to be outstanding NFL QBs.

I think that Warpath is convinced of Sanchez's potential, so he would take him at #3, while he isn't convinced of Stafford's, so he'd pass.

I wouldn't have taken Bradford at 3, because I am not convinced that he has the same kind of potential that either Sanchez or Stafford has.

This year, I'd take Stafford at 3, assuming Sanchez is not an option.

There's just not anything else to justify the 3rd pick on, and I do see potential in Stafford. Just not the potential I see in Sanchez.

[Mecca]

First off are you talking great as in -- Tom Brady (6th round) or Peyton Manning (1st round).

Or are you just talking good as in Matt Cassel (7th round) or Chad Pennington (1st round)

Because the many of the great defensive players went in the first round too...

Nnamdi Asomugha
Ed Reed
Jon Beason
DeMarcus Ware
Ray Lewis
Jerod Mayo

And it goes both ways basically the entire front 7 of the steelers everyone raves about wasn't taken in the 1st round unless you count Timmons who doesn't even start...

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

I understand where he's coming from. Sometimes positional value can also overrate the top on the board. A #1 picking team ALWAYS has to consider taking a QB. For example, Alex Smith was the #1 pick in his draft because he was a QB. If he was in the same draft class as Eli, Philip Rivers, or Big Ben, no freaking way would he be a first round pick.

What I love about "the Patriot Way" is that Pioli and the Pats have never believed in taking a player of high positional value with a high pick because that's what you're supposed to do. They believe the best value is found in the middle to late first round, and will trade down to get there if they have to. Why? Because that's the sweet spot for taking LBs and DBs and Guards and Centers. When you look at their first round picks, most of them were spent on positions of lower positional value. TEs, Guards, Centers, DBs, LBs, RBs--that's been their history.

When you have a guy who knows how to draft well, trading down, getting a top-flight player, and getting an extra pick or two on the side can pay enormous dividends. That's the patriot way.

I see your point and the strategy you present, but even if Bradford and Tebow were in the mix, do you honestly think they're going to rate higher overall than Matt or Mark?
There is no way in hell that any honest assessor of talent puts those two at the top of the pile, BCS Championship be damned.

If we don't pull the trigger this year, we're going to get Matt Ryan'd to the 100th power. The time is now.

[greyhoodie]

And it goes both ways basically the entire front 7 of the steelers everyone raves about wasn't taken in the 1st round unless you count Timmons who doesn't even start...

Absolutely.

1) You can find talent for all the positions in all rounds of the draft.

2) And you can get busts for all positions in all rounds of the draft.

3) For all positions the first rounders have a much greater success rate than the 7th rounders.

I am not saying one should never draft a QB in the first round. Just that it is not necessary.

I am not sure what the state of the offensive line is for KC. But I am a firm believer you should build that first than draft your QB. Otherwise you are going to need a new QB anyway.

[Mecca]

Absolutely.

1) You can find talent for all the positions in all rounds of the draft.

2) And you can get busts for all positions in all rounds of the draft.

3) For all positions the first rounders have a much greater success rate than the 7th rounders.

I am not saying one should never draft a QB in the first round. Just that it is not necessary.

I am not sure what the state of the offensive line is for KC. But I am a firm believer you should build that first than draft your QB. Otherwise you are going to need a new QB anyway.

I think you can do both....many good lines are built in the mid rounds of the draft and the Chiefs won't be getting everything in 1 year.

[chiefzilla1501]

I see your point and the strategy you present, but even if Bradford and Tebow were in the mix, do you honestly think they're going to rate higher overall than Matt or Mark?
There is no way in hell that any honest assessor of talent puts those two at the top of the pile, BCS Championship be damned.

If we don't pull the trigger this year, we're going to get Matt Ryan'd to the 100th power. The time is now.

No. They won't. But we're not talking Bradford or Tebow. We're talking about how he somehow saw talent in a backup QB at USC in Matt Cassel. The guy has an absolute gift for finding outstanding talent in the college ranks. My point being is that based on what we've seen of Pioli, he's not a guy who is going to draft a player simply because he is there. If Pioli has a QB he really likes and believes he can get him in the 2nd or 3rd round or later, he probably won't waste a pick on a top 5 QB. If Pioli does not believe Sanchez or Stafford have a top 5 grade, he will not pick either at #3.

I'm just saying that the Patriot Way is not to earmark a specific position in the top 3 and say that you absolutely have to pick a certain position at that pick to be successful. If Pioli is not completely, absolutely convinced that he'either of those guys are top 3 picks, do not be surprised if he trades out of the pick. I don't think either of these guys are a slam dunk. I just don't see Pioli as a guy who would ever feel compelled to make a pick because he has to.

[Danman]

[QUOTE=chiefzilla1501;5399699]No. We're talking about how he [Pioli] somehow saw talent in a backup QB at USC in Matt Cassel. The guy has an absolute gift for finding outstanding talent in the college ranks.

I agree with this much of your point. SP has repeatedly shown that ability. I also see a HUGE difference in SP's sleeper pics and King Carl's sleeper picks. I don't think SP would skip on a QB at #3 if he thought that person was a player to fit his team.

:thailor: would because his freaking ego would want to tell the world how smart he was to find QB X in round 6. . . or Jarrod Allen in round 4. . .or Dante Hall in round 5, etc.

[Rigodan]

No. They won't. But we're not talking Bradford or Tebow. We're talking about how he somehow saw talent in a backup QB at USC in Matt Cassel. The guy has an absolute gift for finding outstanding talent in the college ranks.

Scott Pioli hasn't been as good in the draft as you'd like him to be. He's been really good but I wouldn't say he's the best. The Pats are the pats because they also bring in guys like Moss, Welker, Rodney Harrison, and Junior Seau,

[bowener]

Agreed. This article totally ignores the fact that 3 of the 4 remaining playoff teams are named after birds. Obviously, the Chiefs need to draft a top 10 QB and change their name. How about the Kansas City Kiwis.

http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/birds/kiwi-bird-stuffed-f705.jpg

Wow, I like it. We have to stick with the 'royalty' and 'leadership' theme, so I say we go with the Kansas City Kingfishers. They may be small, but they are mighty!!