If the Chiefs can't trade down and don't like the value at #3

[LaChapelle]

Is there any player worth trading the #3 pick for. It would have to be with a team in dire need of a LT or QB most likely.

With the weak draft, bad economy and uncapped year on the horizon. History is no help.

[chiefsfan1128]

NOT THAT I'M ADVOCATING IT, (nor do I see it happening), but if the draft is so weak, why not just let time expire and wait for a better position? I don't recall the result, but the Vikings did that some years back. I know there was debate as to what money he would be paid. IF say, 6 teams picked before we picked, and we only had ti pay #9 money, it would be pretty interesting. And a hilarious 1st round.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Deberg_1990]

NOT THAT I'M ADVOCATING IT, (nor do I see it happening), but if the draft is so weak, why not just let time expire and wait for a better position? I don't recall the result, but the Vikings did that some years back. I know there was debate as to what money he would be paid. IF say, 6 teams picked before we picked, and we only had ti pay #9 money, it would be pretty interesting. And a hilarious 1st round.
Posted via Mobile Device

Wont happen. Poor form.

[chiefsfan1128]

Wont happen. Poor form.

How would it be poor form if the front office truly felt the options available didn't fit what the Chiefs needed/wanted?
Posted via Mobile Device

[shitgoose]

How would it be poor form if the front office truly felt the options available didn't fit what the Chiefs needed/wanted?
Posted via Mobile Device

It would make more sense to trade down for much less than the #3 is worth than to sit there and let teams pick ahead of you and get nothing in return.

[BryanBusby]

NOT THAT I'M ADVOCATING IT, (nor do I see it happening), but if the draft is so weak, why not just let time expire and wait for a better position? I don't recall the result, but the Vikings did that some years back. I know there was debate as to what money he would be paid. IF say, 6 teams picked before we picked, and we only had ti pay #9 money, it would be pretty interesting. And a hilarious 1st round.
Posted via Mobile Device
The only thing that would accomplish would be a lengthy hold out by said draft selection. They would simply argue that they should of been the 3rd overall pick and deserve #3 overall money.

[Hootie]

Pioli should just make a statement and hold out for the entire draft.

[Pioli Zombie]

If they don't like the value and cannot trade down what the Patriots have done in the past is to trade out. In other words, trade #3 for another teams 2nd round pick, their 1st and 3rd round picks in 2010 and a starting player. Something like that. People won't like it but they wont get stuck paying 30 million for a guy they don't like and they'll get decent value back.
Posted via Mobile Device

[kcxiv]

If they don't like the value and cannot trade down what the Patriots have done in the past is to trade out. In other words, trade #3 for another teams 2nd round pick, their 1st and 3rd round picks in 2010 and a starting player. Something like that. People won't like it but they wont get stuck paying 30 million for a guy they don't like and they'll get decent value back.
Posted via Mobile Device

Still need someone to bite on it though.

[Pioli Zombie]

If the Lions take Stafford and the Rams take an offensive tackle I've got to thinl some qb desperate team is going to get stupid and want Sanchez at 3. This will make a trade likely.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Micjones]

If the Lions take Stafford and the Rams take an offensive tackle I've got to thinl some qb desperate team is going to get stupid and want Sanchez at 3. This will make a trade likely.
Posted via Mobile Device

If both Stafford and Sanchez are available at #3.
Stay by the phone...

[Pioli Zombie]

If both Stafford and Sanchez are available at #3.
Stay by the phone...

Actually I think that hurts the Chiefs position because a team could deal with the #4 team knowing they can still get a qb
Posted via Mobile Device

[Micjones]

Actually I think that hurts the Chiefs position because a team could deal with the #4 team knowing they can still get a qb
Posted via Mobile Device

Good point.
But they won't necessarily have their pick of the two.
They may be stuck with leftovers.

[SAUTO]

Actually I think that hurts the Chiefs position because a team could deal with the #4 team knowing they can still get a qb
Posted via Mobile Device

i've said that many times, people disagree every time. why? i dont know still now

[SAUTO]

Good point.
But they won't necessarily have their pick of the two.
They may be stuck with leftovers.

ooooohhhhh, got it, except are they scared we will pick one?

[Micjones]

ooooohhhhh, got it, except are they scared we will pick one?

I think anyone who keeps themselves apprised of NFL news knows we haven't given a long-term contract to Cassel. There's enough mystery there to make a team pick up the phone and at least talk with us.

[Pioli Zombie]

i've said that many times, people disagree every time. why? i dont know still now

It just makes sense that if there is just one of them left and numerous teams need a qb and the Chiefs have the pick then the Chiefs can name their price.

If both are there all the teams can deal with numerous teams.
Posted via Mobile Device

[SAUTO]

It just makes sense that if there is just one of them left and numerous teams need a qb and the Chiefs have the pick then the Chiefs can name their price.

If both are there all the teams can deal with numerous teams.
Posted via Mobile Device

this is the way i'm thinking also

[SAUTO]

I think anyone who keeps themselves apprised of NFL news knows we haven't given a long-term contract to Cassel. There's enough mystery there to make a team pick up the phone and at least talk with us.

maybe

[Pioli Zombie]

Or.....maybe we make a deal with the Cardinals. We agree to draft Curry and then deal him for Boldin.
Posted via Mobile Device

[chiefsfan1128]

It would make more sense to trade down for much less than the #3 is worth than to sit there and let teams pick ahead of you and get nothing in return.

Obviously, but the starter to the whole thread was "If the Chiefs can't trade down and don't like the value at #3"


But it actually worked out for the Vikings when they did it.
According to Mike Florrio of Sporting News:
"In 2002, the Cowboys were trying to strike a deal with the Chiefs for the sixth overall pick, which Kansas City planned to use on defensive tackle Ryan Sims. Time ran out, and the Vikings sat on their hands. The Vikings could have submitted a card with Sims' name on it, stealing him from the Chiefs. But Minnesota didn't and the trade went through. And the Chiefs got Sims.
In 2003, the Vikings tried to swing a trade with the Ravens or the Jaguars for the ability to take quarterback Byron Leftwich. Time ran out, and the next team on the clock didn't sit on its hands. The Jaguars at No. 8 swiped Leftwich. Then the Panthers pounced on tackle Jordan Gross. The Vikings finally got it together, and picked defensive tackle Kevin Williams.

In hindsight, the Vikings benefited from the blunders. Sims turned out to be a bust, and Minnesota's fallback option—tackle Bryant McKinnie—has been a fixture on the left side of the line. As to Williams, Minnesota would have drafted him at No. 7, No. 8, or No. 9. No harm done.

So while the Vikings took their lumps at the time, they actually dodged a bullet in 2002, and they got the guy they wanted, at two salary slots lower, in 2003."


Personally I'd rather take someone at #3.
I'd rather have somebody at the top of a weak draft class, than multiple
average people in that same class.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

maybe

We better get their 1st round pick and more out of that.

[Go Mizzou & Chiefs]

Anquan Boldin and Bertrand Berry :D

[bdeg]

I'd take a flyer on Cliff Avril from Detroit, he seems like he'd be a good fit. Also mentioned Gholston in a similar thread in the draft planet.