PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Don't shoot the messenger...Broncs, Phil want Chiefs pick


oldandslow
04-17-2009, 09:23 AM
I listen to a lot of St Louis radio (Cards fan) and Randy Karriker (http://www.toastedrav.com/section/wxos_shows_parrisandburwell) reported that Denver and Philly are both trying to trade for third pick w/ KC.

I don't know if he knows what the hell he is talking about (he does baseball well) or if he was just speculating, or what...but those were his words.

L.A. Chieffan
04-17-2009, 09:23 AM
no problem

Rooster
04-17-2009, 09:24 AM
I listen to a lot of St Louis radio (Cards fan) and Randy Karriker (http://www.toastedrav.com/section/wxos_shows_parrisandburwell) reported that Denver and Philly are both trying to trade for third pick w/ KC.

I don't know if he knows what the hell he is talking about (he does baseball well) or if he was just speculating, or what...but those were his words.

Let the bidding war begin. :evil:

raybec 4
04-17-2009, 09:24 AM
If the trade can make us better, do it.

LaChapelle
04-17-2009, 09:24 AM
You would need to worry more about getting hugged and groped then shot, IMO.

shitgoose
04-17-2009, 09:25 AM
They must really need an ILB

oldandslow
04-17-2009, 09:26 AM
They must really need an ILB

No, the broncs want Sanchez and the Eagles want a LT

QuikSsurfer
04-17-2009, 09:34 AM
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/quikssurfer/1187204117731.gif

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 09:37 AM
The Donk's have the 18th and 21st pick in the first round. I would give them the 3rd for these 2 first round picks.

12th and 18th

Phillie has 21st and 27th. The Donks have the tools if they want to move up.

Buzz
04-17-2009, 09:40 AM
12th

I stand corrected the eagles had the 21st pick

Micjones
04-17-2009, 09:42 AM
Both Denver and Philly need to pony up a third pick to make this happen.
ESPECIALLY Philly.
Personally, I think they'll have to fork over three in this draft and one in the next.

Rain Man
04-17-2009, 09:42 AM
I've never quite understood the boycotts on in-the-division trades. Presumably a trade happens when both teams think they're improving. Outside the division, it may be easier because if you improve X points and the other team improves X+1 points, you're not as worried. Inside the division, you probably wouldn't make the trade if it improves the other team more, but as long as it's equal or you think you got the X+1, you should do it.

Sure-Oz
04-17-2009, 09:43 AM
Hell yeah make a trade, fleece em

Skyy God
04-17-2009, 09:43 AM
12th and 18th

Phillie has 21st and 27th. The Donks have the tools if they want to move up.

The 12th and 18th are pretty much even value to our pick, btw.

I'd be a little concerned about giving the Donkeys their QB, but that would be an incredible trade for the Chiefs.

DeezNutz
04-17-2009, 09:45 AM
Not excited about the possibility of Sanchez going to Denver, but that's just me...

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 09:47 AM
The 12th and 18th are pretty much even value to our pick, btw.

I'd be a little concerned about giving the Donkeys their QB, but that would be an incredible trade for the Chiefs.

Who do you take at 12 and 18 to justify giving them a QB?

DeezNutz
04-17-2009, 09:48 AM
Who do you take at 12 and 18 to justify giving them a QB?

If Sanchez were to develop into an elite QB, it's impossible to justify giving your division rival the single most important piece to the puzzle.

CoMoChief
04-17-2009, 09:48 AM
The 12th and 18th are pretty much even value to our pick, btw.

I'd be a little concerned about giving the Donkeys their QB, but that would be an incredible trade for the Chiefs.

I wouldnt. Sanchez isn't going to be shit. We will murder him just like we did Ryan Leaf.

oldandslow
04-17-2009, 09:50 AM
Who do you take at 12 and 18 to justify giving them a QB?

DE Maybin, and trade the other pick for Boldin...

KCFalcon59
04-17-2009, 09:50 AM
I've never quite understood the boycotts on in-the-division trades. Presumably a trade happens when both teams think they're improving. Outside the division, it may be easier because if you improve X points and the other team improves X+1 points, you're not as worried. Inside the division, you probably wouldn't make the trade if it improves the other team more, but as long as it's equal or you think you got the X+1, you should do it.


To an extent. Denver needs a QB. You don't help them ever.

KCFalcon59
04-17-2009, 09:51 AM
Not excited about the possibility of Sanchez going to Denver, but that's just me...

This

Frazod
04-17-2009, 09:52 AM
I've predicted this will happen all along. Sure hope it does. Two firsts and a third, perhaps, from Denver? I like it.

Pucker up, buttercup. :evil:

Kylo Ren
04-17-2009, 09:53 AM
TRADE DOWN!

I'm all for it! It'd be great if teams were in a bidding war for our 3rd pick.

the Talking Can
04-17-2009, 09:53 AM
cool...the more the merrier....and if people think Seattle is looking for a QB then out pick really becomes valuable...

and pioli isn't going to leave 800 points of value in a trade like idiots around here think

Crush
04-17-2009, 09:55 AM
The Donks and Eagles better get down on their knees and start sucking because the auction begins now.

shitgoose
04-17-2009, 09:57 AM
No, the broncs want Sanchez and the Eagles want a LT

Thanks Captain Obvious

Coogs
04-17-2009, 09:58 AM
I've never quite understood the boycotts on in-the-division trades. Presumably a trade happens when both teams think they're improving. Outside the division, it may be easier because if you improve X points and the other team improves X+1 points, you're not as worried. Inside the division, you probably wouldn't make the trade if it improves the other team more, but as long as it's equal or you think you got the X+1, you should do it.

Pioli traded inside the division on more than one occasion in NE. Bledsoe to the Bills, and draft picks to the Dolphins for Wes Welker off the top of my head. I'm not sure if he was involved in the Curtis Martin to the Jets deal or not, but I know Parcells was.

And where Pioli and Denvers HC have some history together, I could see us doing a deal with the Bronc's.

tboss27
04-17-2009, 09:59 AM
Who cares if Sanchez does turn out to be good - Denver's D has more holes than ours does and if they make that trade they are idiots. I would take their two 1sts the second it's offered run away and hide. They couldn't win crap w/ Cutler, it would be a pretty far stretch to think Sanchez would out-perform him and be good enought to make up for their lack of D.

Chiefnj2
04-17-2009, 10:04 AM
I don't think Denver will give up 2 firsts for Sanchez. They can probably give one pick and maybe a 3rd or 4th for Quinn.

Quesadilla Joe
04-17-2009, 10:05 AM
Orton and our 2 first round picks for Cassel and your first round pick. Final offer.

htismaqe
04-17-2009, 10:06 AM
I hope it's true.

htismaqe
04-17-2009, 10:08 AM
If Sanchez were to develop into an elite QB, it's impossible to justify giving your division rival the single most important piece to the puzzle.

Unless you're worried about your own team instead of everybody else.

People always used to delight in Carl "driving up the price" for the Broncos.

Frankly, who cares?

If Pioli and Haley CONSISTENTLY do what's best for THIS team, it won't freaking MATTER what the Broncos do, because we'll beat them anyway. That's the way New England has done it.

ct
04-17-2009, 10:09 AM
If true, then this is a beautiful scenario for us!!

DeezNutz
04-17-2009, 10:10 AM
Unless you're worried about your own team instead of everybody else.

People always used to delight in Carl "driving up the price" for the Broncos.

Frankly, who cares?

If Pioli and Haley CONSISTENTLY do what's best for THIS team, it won't freaking MATTER what the Broncos do, because we'll beat them anyway. That's the way New England has done it.

My comment was based on my belief that drafting Sanchez would be in the best interest of the Chiefs. Be it Cassel or Sanchez, I want an elite-level player at the QB position.

ct
04-17-2009, 10:12 AM
Orton and our 2 first round picks for Cassel and your first round pick. Final offer.

not

Bowser
04-17-2009, 10:14 AM
Can you imagine the meltdown Bronco nation would endure if they gave their two firsts (first time they have ever had two picks in the first round, btw) and possibly another pick to US, so they can hope to draft a stud to replace the stud they just traded away? Glorious.

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 10:14 AM
You have to think that Denver would have to overpay to talk, and if both offer value chart value go with Phillie first. The problem for the Eagles is their 2 firsts are 720 points short. They would have to offer up next years first plus an additional midrounder to make it worth it.

Mile High Mania
04-17-2009, 10:15 AM
Funny... sure, anything can happen. But, I just don't see them making the trade of 12 and 18 to #3 with KC.

If you look at picks 4, 5, 6, 7 ... those teams are likely NOT taking a QB, but they are all obvious targets for other teams to trade up with if they want Sanchez or other.

So, the majority feeling is that KC will not take Sanchez... meaning that if Denver did want to trade up, there are 4 other less costly options. Do we really think the Jags will take him - I don't. Green Bay? No.

Looking at it in that light... why would #3 be so attractive if your goal is Sanchez?
<table celpadding="0" class="mini-tracker" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0"><thead><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr></thead> <tbody> <tr><td>1</td><td>Detroit Lions (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:det)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>2</td><td>St. Louis Rams (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:stl)</td></tr> <tr><td>3</td><td>Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:kc)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>4</td><td>Seattle Seahawks (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sea)</td></tr> <tr><td>5</td><td>Cleveland Browns (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:cle)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>6</td><td>Cincinnati Bengals (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:cin)</td></tr> <tr><td>7</td><td>Oakland Raiders (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:oak)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>8</td><td>Jacksonville Jaguars (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:jac)</td></tr> <tr><td>9</td><td>Green Bay Packers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:gb)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>10</td><td>San Francisco 49ers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sf)</td></tr> <tr><td>11</td><td>Buffalo Bills (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:buf)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>12</td><td>Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:dnt)</td></tr> <tr><td>13</td><td>Washington Redskins (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:was)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>14</td><td>New Orleans Saints (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:no)</td></tr> <tr><td>15</td><td>Houston Texans (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:hou)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>16</td><td>San Diego Chargers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sd)</td></tr> <tr><td>17</td><td>New York Jets (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:nyj)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>18</td><td>Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:den) (from Chicago)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Bowser
04-17-2009, 10:16 AM
You have to think that Denver would have to overpay to talk, and if both offer value chart value go with Phillie first. The problem for the Eagles is their 2 firsts are 720 points short. They would have to offer up next years first plus an additional midrounder to make it worth it.

I'll cut them a deal and just take their two firsts and a third this year. Maybe we'll send them a fourth next year in return for a next year three, as well.

Brock
04-17-2009, 10:17 AM
Orton and our 2 first round picks for Cassel and your first round pick. Final offer.

ROFL

Bowser
04-17-2009, 10:17 AM
Funny... sure, anything can happen. But, I just don't see them making the trade of 12 and 18 to #3 with KC.

If you look at picks 4, 5, 6, 7 ... those teams are likely NOT taking a QB, but they are all obvious targets for other teams to trade up with if they want Sanchez or other.

So, the majority feeling is that KC will not take Sanchez... meaning that if Denver did want to trade up, there are 4 other less costly options. Do we really think the Jags will take him - I don't. Green Bay? No.

Looking at it in that light... why would #3 be so attractive if your goal is Sanchez?
<table celpadding="0" class="mini-tracker" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0"><thead><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr></thead> <tbody> <tr><td>1</td><td>Detroit Lions (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:det)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>2</td><td>St. Louis Rams (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:stl)</td></tr> <tr><td>3</td><td>Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:kc)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>4</td><td>Seattle Seahawks (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sea)</td></tr> <tr><td>5</td><td>Cleveland Browns (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:cle)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>6</td><td>Cincinnati Bengals (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:cin)</td></tr> <tr><td>7</td><td>Oakland Raiders (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:oak)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>8</td><td>Jacksonville Jaguars (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:jac)</td></tr> <tr><td>9</td><td>Green Bay Packers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:gb)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>10</td><td>San Francisco 49ers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sf)</td></tr> <tr><td>11</td><td>Buffalo Bills (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:buf)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>12</td><td>Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:dnt)</td></tr> <tr><td>13</td><td>Washington Redskins (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:was)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>14</td><td>New Orleans Saints (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:no)</td></tr> <tr><td>15</td><td>Houston Texans (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:hou)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>16</td><td>San Diego Chargers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sd)</td></tr> <tr><td>17</td><td>New York Jets (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:nyj)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>18</td><td>Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:den) (from Chicago)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Because the thought is that the Seahawks are hot and heavy for him. I'm thinking that this is where all this trade up talk has come from.

Mile High Mania
04-17-2009, 10:18 AM
They that apparently really wants Sanchez is Danny Snyder... sitting there at #13. That is your huckleberry and he's never been afraid to wreck a draft or mortgage the future to get his guy.

Brock
04-17-2009, 10:18 AM
Seahawks will draft Sanchez at 4.

Mile High Mania
04-17-2009, 10:19 AM
Because the thought is that the Seahawks are hot and heavy for him. I'm thinking that this is where all this trade up talk has come from.

And, if SEA wants him... more power to them. That's why I think you should call Snyder.

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 10:19 AM
Funny... sure, anything can happen. But, I just don't see them making the trade of 12 and 18 to #3 with KC.

If you look at picks 4, 5, 6, 7 ... those teams are likely NOT taking a QB, but they are all obvious targets for other teams to trade up with if they want Sanchez or other.

So, the majority feeling is that KC will not take Sanchez... meaning that if Denver did want to trade up, there are 4 other less costly options. Do we really think the Jags will take him - I don't. Green Bay? No.

Looking at it in that light... why would #3 be so attractive if your goal is Sanchez?
<table celpadding="0" class="mini-tracker" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0"><thead><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr></thead> <tbody> <tr><td>1</td><td>Detroit Lions (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:det)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>2</td><td>St. Louis Rams (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:stl)</td></tr> <tr><td>3</td><td>Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:kc)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>4</td><td>Seattle Seahawks (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sea)</td></tr> <tr><td>5</td><td>Cleveland Browns (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:cle)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>6</td><td>Cincinnati Bengals (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:cin)</td></tr> <tr><td>7</td><td>Oakland Raiders (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:oak)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>8</td><td>Jacksonville Jaguars (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:jac)</td></tr> <tr><td>9</td><td>Green Bay Packers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:gb)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>10</td><td>San Francisco 49ers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sf)</td></tr> <tr><td>11</td><td>Buffalo Bills (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:buf)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>12</td><td>Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:dnt)</td></tr> <tr><td>13</td><td>Washington Redskins (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:was)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>14</td><td>New Orleans Saints (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:no)</td></tr> <tr><td>15</td><td>Houston Texans (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:hou)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>16</td><td>San Diego Chargers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sd)</td></tr> <tr><td>17</td><td>New York Jets (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:nyj)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>18</td><td>Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:den) (from Chicago)</td></tr></tbody></table>

You must have missed all the rumors swirling. Word on the street is Seattle will take Sanchez at 4 if he's there.

And I'm too slow, repost.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-17-2009, 10:19 AM
Seahawks will draft Sanchez at 4.

They will. I'm positive of it. Well, that is if both OT's are off the board. And if KC doesn't trade out of that spot, I think we're going OT like it or not. There just isn't any other value there.

Coogs
04-17-2009, 10:21 AM
why would #3 be so attractive if your goal is Sanchez?

From GBN...

Washington is reportedly very interested in acquiring USC QB Mark Sanchez at next week’s draft. No word, if true, whether the Redskins are simply contemplating the possibility of selecting Sanchez in the remote scenario in which he lasts until the 13th pick or whether Washington is seriously considering moving up to get the former Trojan signal caller. Whichever way the Redskins are thinking with regard to Sanchez it doesn’t sound like good news for incumbent QB Jason Campbell who could be dealt if Washington succeeds in acquiring Sanchez… Just how far the Redskins, or anybody else interested in drafting Sanchez isn’t clear, but there’s a buzz out of Seattle that the Seahawks will consider taking him for themselves with the 4th pick overall. With Matt Hasselback and his wonky back getting on in football years, it certainly makes some sense for Seattle to grab a young developmental QB to groom behind #8

That could be why #3 becomes attractive.

Bowser
04-17-2009, 10:21 AM
Seahawks will draft Sanchez at 4.

Why wouldn't they? It makes too much sense for them if he's still there at 4. Hasselbeck is getting more and more injury prone every year, and Seneca Wallace is a solid backup at best. KC is sitting in a great spot for a team that wants to trade up for Sanchez. With rumors of Philly wanting a tackle, it just makes it all the more sweeter.

Coogs
04-17-2009, 10:22 AM
And I'm too slow, repost.

Ditto!

Sure-Oz
04-17-2009, 10:24 AM
I hope seattle wants him bad so teams will offer up a ton, this would be nice

raybec 4
04-17-2009, 10:25 AM
I hope seattle wants him bad so teams will offer up a ton, this would be nice

Yep, best case scenario for the Chiefs. Even if they don't want him I hope they can convince everyone they do.

bevischief
04-17-2009, 10:29 AM
Takem to the cleaners...

The Franchise
04-17-2009, 10:30 AM
Let's go Madden style!!!

Trade the #3 to the Broncos for the #12 and #18. Broncos take Mark Sanchez

Trade the #18 to the Eagles for the #28 and #53. Broncos take Oher or Andre Smith.

#3 turns into

#12, #28 and #53.

Tribal Warfare
04-17-2009, 10:30 AM
Time for the Pioli instituted ass raping to begin

Chiefnj2
04-17-2009, 10:30 AM
The Seahawks started the buzz so they could trade their #4 pick.

bevischief
04-17-2009, 10:31 AM
I'll cut them a deal and just take their two firsts and a third this year. Maybe we'll send them a fourth next year in return for a next year three, as well.

It's done.

Bowser
04-17-2009, 10:31 AM
Let's go Madden style!!!

Trade the #3 to the Broncos for the #12 and #18. Broncos take Mark Sanchez

Trade the #18 to the Eagles for the #28 and #53. Broncos take Oher or Andre Smith.

#3 turns into

#12, #28 and #53.

Even better.

bevischief
04-17-2009, 10:32 AM
I wouldnt. Sanchez isn't going to be shit. We will murder him just like we did Ryan Leaf.

Or Brady's knee...

Chiefnj2
04-17-2009, 10:32 AM
Let's go Madden style!!!

Trade the #3 to the Broncos for the #12 and #18. Broncos take Mark Sanchez

Trade the #18 to the Eagles for the #28 and #53. Broncos take Oher or Andre Smith.

#3 turns into

#12, #28 and #53.

Who would the Chiefs be targeting at those numbers?

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 10:32 AM
IF the Denver one went down we could go Brown/Raji at 12, DHB at 18 to bring in another recieving threat allowing us to be comfortable shipping Tony G to Atlanta or someone else for a 2nd rounder. Then pick up one of the centers with that, possibly trading up if you want Mack or Unger. Then the offense would need a RT to be in pretty good shape. Defense is better in next years draft and we address a piece of the pass rush problem or the NT.

Coogs
04-17-2009, 10:34 AM
The Seahawks started the buzz so they could trade their #4 pick.

Possibly. But even by doing that, they bring the Chiefs into the picture if some team is thinking they need to jump in front of the Hawks.

Red Dawg
04-17-2009, 10:34 AM
To an extent. Denver needs a QB. You don't help them ever.


The chances of Mark being a great QB is not good. The history on one year College starters is 100% bad. They got a gold mine with Elway, a map to a gold mine with Jay and it doesn't seem probable odds that they trade a pro bowler and then draft a pro bowler.

eazyb81
04-17-2009, 10:35 AM
Why wouldn't they? It makes too much sense for them if he's still there at 4. Hasselbeck is getting more and more injury prone every year, and Seneca Wallace is a solid backup at best. KC is sitting in a great spot for a team that wants to trade up for Sanchez. With rumors of Philly wanting a tackle, it just makes it all the more sweeter.

Yep, and it's a perfect situation for both parties. The lack of experience is the biggest knock on Sanchez, and with Seattle he will get to sit for a year or two without any pressure to play. Seattle still has Hasselbeck who can play for a year or two and teach Sanchez.

ct
04-17-2009, 10:36 AM
They that apparently really wants Sanchez is Danny Snyder... sitting there at #13. That is your huckleberry and he's never been afraid to wreck a draft or mortgage the future to get his guy.

I agree. This is the most likely suitor for #3. They offer #13, their 3rd round pick (don't have a 2nd round pick this year), and next year's 1st round pick.

I'd do the Philly deal for both 1st round picks. The 'value' doesn't add up for many, but this year I believe it does.

Bowser
04-17-2009, 10:37 AM
Who would the Chiefs be targeting at those numbers?

I'll throw a guess -

12 - Aaron Maybin

28 - Hakeem Nicks

53 - Best possible linebacker


?

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 10:37 AM
Yep, and it's a perfect situation for both parties. The lack of experience is the biggest knock on Sanchez, and with Seattle he will get to sit for a year or two without any pressure to play. Seattle still has Hasselbeck who can play for a year or two and teach Sanchez.

Not to mention if we do trade with someone who takes Sanchez, they get the consoliation prize of Monroe or Smith.

Saccopoo
04-17-2009, 10:38 AM
IF the Denver one went down we could go Brown/Raji at 12, DHB at 18 to bring in another recieving threat allowing us to be comfortable shipping Tony G to Atlanta or someone else for a 2nd rounder. Then pick up one of the centers with that, possibly trading up if you want Mack or Unger. Then the offense would need a RT to be in pretty good shape. Defense is better in next years draft and we address a piece of the pass rush problem or the NT.

Other than Mack, this would be a colossal waste of the #3 pick trade scenario. Raji and Bey? With the 12 & 18 picks? Yikes.

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 10:39 AM
I'll throw a guess -

12 - Aaron Maybin

28 - Hakeem Nicks

53 - Best possible linebacker


?

53 would go to the Oline for me. But we are on the same line of thinking. Pass rush/NT, WR, then I'd go O-line it's a great class this year and next year will be the year for defense.

kcfanXIII
04-17-2009, 10:39 AM
Orton and our 2 first round picks for Cassel and your first round pick. Final offer.

thank you mr. bowlen, but no thanks...

click...


hello, philly? still want the #3?

ct
04-17-2009, 10:40 AM
The chances of Mark being a great QB is not good. The history on one year College starters is 100% bad. They got a gold mine with Elway, a map to a gold mine with Jay and it doesn't seem probable odds that they trade a pro bowler and then draft a pro bowler.

What exactly is the history of zero year College starting QBs?

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 10:41 AM
Other than Mack, this would be a colossal waste of the #3 pick trade scenario. Raji and Bey? With the 12 & 18 picks? Yikes.

What are you talking about? People have thrown out Raji's name at #3, we need a NT for a 3-4 and Glenn Dorsey is not your answer. DHB is my favorite WR in the draft. He's a little raw, but has the potential to be a stud. He's the perfect guy to get opposite Bowe.

The Franchise
04-17-2009, 10:41 AM
Who would the Chiefs be targeting at those numbers?

BPA

MagicHef
04-17-2009, 10:41 AM
Why would the Broncos do this? Didn't they turn down the #1 overall from Detroit?

ct
04-17-2009, 10:42 AM
I'll throw a guess -

12 - BPA

28 - BPA

53 - BPA


?

fyp

Bowser
04-17-2009, 10:42 AM
53 would go to the Oline for me. But we are on the same line of thinking. Pass rush/NT, WR, then I'd go O-line it's a great class this year and next year will be the year for defense.

I'd be good with that. The only reason I went with LBer at 53 is that the consensus is we can find a RT on Day 2, and we need some linebackers in here if we really are going 34.

ModSocks
04-17-2009, 10:43 AM
This is exciting. knowing that no matter what, we're going to end up as the winners. I'm praying to the football gods that we can get this deal with Denver done.

How freakin' sweet would it be to

A. Steal Cassel away from McDaniels.
B. Subsequently, cost the Donkey's there franchise QB because of the hysteria
C. take there two first rnd picks. One of which was acquired because of the Cassel/Cutler fiasco.

We screwed up there QB situation, and then they have to pay us so they can attempt to fix it. Karma baby, karma.

ct
04-17-2009, 10:44 AM
What are you talking about? People have thrown out Raji's name at #3, we need a NT for a 3-4 and Glenn Dorsey is not your answer.

I'm getting more and more irritated with this comment. Raji was a 4-3 NT, whom many claim is not the player Dorsey was. So why exactly does Raji project better to 3-4 NT than Dorsey? 10-20 pounds and a dimebag of afghan?

Bowser
04-17-2009, 10:46 AM
fyp

Exactly what I said. :D

Color Red
04-17-2009, 10:47 AM
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/quikssurfer/1187204117731.gif

I don't get it. Is this supposed to be funny?

You are part of the problem and you need help.

The Franchise
04-17-2009, 10:59 AM
I don't get it. Is this supposed to be funny?

You are part of the problem and you need help.

That shit is hilarious. Get over it.

PhillyChiefFan
04-17-2009, 11:06 AM
No, the broncs want Sanchez and the Eagles want a LT

All the sports guys here in Philly are yacking about trading with KC.

They have the money and the picks, I could see this happening.

Apparently Andy Reid loves Jason Smith.

58kcfan89
04-17-2009, 11:10 AM
All the sports guys here in Philly are yacking about trading with KC.

They have the money and the picks, I could see this happening.

Apparently Andy Reid loves Jason Smith.

I haven't seen many mocks where J. Smith is on the board at 2...

As for #3, I can't wait 'til draft day to see what Pioli can pull out of it. I hardly know what to do now that we have a competent GM with the draft coming up!

Captain Obvious
04-17-2009, 11:12 AM
Thanks Captain Obvious

You're welcome?

Kerberos
04-17-2009, 11:14 AM
This

pessimistic much?

PhillyChiefFan
04-17-2009, 11:14 AM
I haven't seen many mocks where J. Smith is on the board at 2...

As for #3, I can't wait 'til draft day to see what Pioli can pull out of it. I hardly know what to do now that we have a competent GM with the draft coming up!

I haven't either, but it has been very widely rumored that Reid wants Smith.

Again though, this is just what I HEARD here in Philly on sports talk radio.

I'm still trying to get use to having a competant GM, I keep waiting for him to f*ck up, then I remember he isn't Carl Peterson.

Frankie
04-17-2009, 11:23 AM
Sorry for the text size, but I do want it to stand out as I was originally going to start a separate thread about it:

I heard on PTI that Daniel Snyder is "really infatuated" with Sanchez. That should drive our price up too.

Mr. Krab
04-17-2009, 11:34 AM
If we are convince that Cassel is the guy then go ahead and trade the #3 for Denver's two 1st rounders.

#3 - 2200

#12 - 1200
#18 - 900
-----------
total - 2100

not completely even but fairly close. Make Denver throw i a 4th rounder too if you can.

vailpass
04-17-2009, 11:38 AM
There is some hilarious shit posted on this thread. I suppose Pioli will deliver all of these new draft choices to the commish while riding a unicorn with a mane so long it covers his ten-head.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2009, 11:40 AM
I'm getting more and more irritated with this comment. Raji was a 4-3 NT, whom many claim is not the player Dorsey was. So why exactly does Raji project better to 3-4 NT than Dorsey? 10-20 pounds and a dimebag of afghan?

Because Raji's strength is that he's an immovable object. He's a huge guy with terrific strength to hold off multiple blockers and play 2-gap--very important for a nose tackle.

Dorsey's a guy you want attacking and moving around. He's strong, but he's not the kind of immovable object you want at nose tackle. And if you keep him engorged in multiple blockers at all times, you keep him from doing what he does best--shoot gaps and explode into the backfield.

Bowser
04-17-2009, 11:40 AM
There is some hilarious shit posted on this thread. I suppose Pioli will deliver all of these new draft choices to the commish while riding a unicorn with a mane so long it covers his ten-head.

It's good to let out the frustration of seeing your team's rival gm ass rape your new wundakid coach.

ct
04-17-2009, 11:41 AM
From Rotoworld...

Jason Peters-T-Bills Apr. 17 - 1:29 pm et

ESPN.com's John Clayton and Sal Paolantonio report the Eagles are close to acquiring Bills Pro Bowl LT Jason Peters.

UPDATED (with comments):

This coming just three days after Bills COO Russ Brandon expressed confidence that Peters would remain in Buffalo. Peters is expected to fly to Philly today to meet with team officials and take a physical. Terms of the deal are not yet known, but one of the Eagles' two first-round picks would have to be the starting point.

Brock
04-17-2009, 11:41 AM
There is some hilarious shit posted on this thread. I suppose Pioli will deliver all of these new draft choices to the commish while riding a unicorn with a mane so long it covers his ten-head.

Your coach wants our quarterback.

Bowser
04-17-2009, 11:42 AM
From Rotoworld...

Jason Peters-T-Bills Apr. 17 - 1:29 pm et

ESPN.com's John Clayton and Sal Paolantonio report the Eagles are close to acquiring Bills Pro Bowl LT Jason Peters.

Well that's no good.

SAUTO
04-17-2009, 11:43 AM
I don't get it. Is this supposed to be funny?

You are part of the problem and you need help.

what problem???

The Franchise
04-17-2009, 11:44 AM
From Rotoworld...

Jason Peters-T-Bills Apr. 17 - 1:29 pm et

ESPN.com's John Clayton and Sal Paolantonio report the Eagles are close to acquiring Bills Pro Bowl LT Jason Peters.

UPDATED (with comments):

This coming just three days after Bills COO Russ Brandon expressed confidence that Peters would remain in Buffalo. Peters is expected to fly to Philly today to meet with team officials and take a physical. Terms of the deal are not yet known, but one of the Eagles' two first-round picks would have to be the starting point.

Ahhh fuck.

Micjones
04-17-2009, 11:45 AM
If we are convince that Cassel is the guy then go ahead and trade the #3 for Denver's two 1st rounders.

#3 - 2200

#12 - 1200
#18 - 900
-----------
total - 2100

not completely even but fairly close. Make Denver throw i a 4th rounder too if you can.

I'd make them pony up a #5 and call it even.

Frankie
04-17-2009, 11:46 AM
If we are convince that Cassel is the guy then go ahead and trade the #3 for Denver's two 1st rounders.

#3 - 2200

#12 - 1200
#18 - 900
-----------
total - 2100

not completely even but fairly close. Make Denver throw i a 4th rounder too if you can.

I bet if Pioli pulls this off he will be trading one of the 1sts for more picks this year and next year.

Micjones
04-17-2009, 11:46 AM
Ahhh fuck.

I thought the deal with Philadelphia would've been much harder to do anyway.
Seeing how they only had low #1's.

That would've required the packaging of probably 3-4 picks.

We can still deal with Denver.

vailpass
04-17-2009, 11:47 AM
Your coach wants our quarterback.

Not anymore, he just got the same kind of QB from Chicago. The numb **** McKid traded our franchise QB and now has serviceable -manage -the -game guy. Same thing as Cassel.
None of that changes the fact that some of the dream scenarios on this thread are plain hilarious.

Coogs
04-17-2009, 11:47 AM
From Rotoworld...

Jason Peters-T-Bills Apr. 17 - 1:29 pm et

ESPN.com's John Clayton and Sal Paolantonio report the Eagles are close to acquiring Bills Pro Bowl LT Jason Peters.

UPDATED (with comments):

This coming just three days after Bills COO Russ Brandon expressed confidence that Peters would remain in Buffalo. Peters is expected to fly to Philly today to meet with team officials and take a physical. Terms of the deal are not yet known, but one of the Eagles' two first-round picks would have to be the starting point.


#11 1250
#21 800
#42 480

from the Bills for #3 and TG might work.

The Franchise
04-17-2009, 11:49 AM
#11 1250
#21 800
#42 480

from the Bills for #3 and TG might work.

Well I guess maybe the Bills would want a LT to replace Peters. I don't know if they'd give up that much though. They have some holes too...AND they're in a tough ass division.

ct
04-17-2009, 11:50 AM
#11 1250
#21 800
#42 480

from the Bills for #3 and TG might work.

Gonzo already nixed a trade to Buffalo last year. Don't see how he'd feel any different about them this year, especially with TO hoggin all his targets. Though I don't see Pioli asking his permission, so how knows.

Buffalo might be able to sit right where they are and get Oher, or Britton otherwise, if they really want to replace that LT regardless of value. With an extra 1st, they just might do it.

Micjones
04-17-2009, 11:51 AM
Well I guess maybe the Bills would want a LT to replace Peters. I don't know if they'd give up that much though. They have some holes too...AND they're in a tough ass division.

Giving them the #3 AND TG would be more than fair for a mid-round #1, low round #1, and mid-round #2.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2009, 11:51 AM
cool...the more the merrier....and if people think Seattle is looking for a QB then out pick really becomes valuable...

and pioli isn't going to leave 800 points of value in a trade like idiots around here think

Why is it idiotic? Because a draft chart that Mike Mayock said teams don't use anymore says it's idiotic?

There was never a more ideal situation for a trade down. If the Chiefs stick around at #3, they can either draft a player that provides low positional value (e.g. Curry as a 3-4 ILB, Monroe to upgrade the RT position), a player that plays an important position but has too many question marks to be a top 10 pick (e.g. Raji, Everett Brown), or a player that they don't need because they have someone there already (e.g. Sanchez). The only guy that seems to make sense is Crabtree, and I don't feel comfortable burning a top 5 pick on him.

What is the incentive to stick around? If the Chiefs trade down, there's a good chance they'll get a guy they'd want at #3 (i.e. Raji or Everett Brown) anyway. And they'd get an extra pick to use on the top center, guard, or right tackle in the class.

You're going to pass up the opportunity to take 2 solid players over 1 good but not great player at #3 because you were upset they didn't throw a 3rd round pick in the mix?

As a hypothetical, the trade is Aaron Curry (as an ILB) for Rey Maualuga and Alex Mack, or Everett Brown and Alex Mack, or BJ Raji and Alex Mack, or Aaron Maybin and Alex Mack. Or Brian Cushing and Alex Mack. Etc.... (feel free to replace Mack with either Heyward-Bey or Max Unger). Any one of those combinations is far better than any option at #3. Therefore, it's a no-brainer--you obviously try to squeeze the most value you can get, but if it means giving up 800 points in value, the Chiefs still come out as big winners. To answer your question about Pioli, I believe he is smart enough to rely on his negotiations ability to dictate a deal, instead of relying on a piece of paper to decide what makes/breaks a deal.

Frazod
04-17-2009, 11:54 AM
Well, so much for Philly - they just dumped their No. 1 pick.

Gravedigger
04-17-2009, 11:56 AM
I've never quite understood the boycotts on in-the-division trades. Presumably a trade happens when both teams think they're improving. Outside the division, it may be easier because if you improve X points and the other team improves X+1 points, you're not as worried. Inside the division, you probably wouldn't make the trade if it improves the other team more, but as long as it's equal or you think you got the X+1, you should do it.

I think that Pioli knows how good Sanchez or Stafford can be and he didn't want to give Cassel to the Donks same as he doesnt want to set up the Donks for success with one of those two. I think that his first priority is to listen to offers and to get Philly's hopefully but by draft day he'll make the deal with Denver if need be.

Coogs
04-17-2009, 11:59 AM
#11 1250
#21 800
#42 480

from the Bills for #3 and TG might work.

Update...

#11 1250
#28 660
#42 480

Micjones
04-17-2009, 12:00 PM
You don't need a chart to determine the fairness of a trade for draft picks.

htismaqe
04-17-2009, 12:08 PM
Because Raji's strength is that he's an immovable object. He's a huge guy with terrific strength to hold off multiple blockers and play 2-gap--very important for a nose tackle.

Dorsey's a guy you want attacking and moving around. He's strong, but he's not the kind of immovable object you want at nose tackle. And if you keep him engorged in multiple blockers at all times, you keep him from doing what he does best--shoot gaps and explode into the backfield.

Actually, Raji's STRENGTH is that he's a 1-gap penetrator. Most feel he's best-suited to play the 3-technique in the pros. Just like Dorsey.

The difference is that most feel he would still be excellent in the NT, unlike they thought about Dorsey.

vailpass
04-17-2009, 12:12 PM
Why is it idiotic? Because a draft chart that Mike Mayock said teams don't use anymore says it's idiotic?

There was never a more ideal situation for a trade down. If the Chiefs stick around at #3, they can either draft a player that provides low positional value (e.g. Curry as a 3-4 ILB, Monroe to upgrade the RT position), a player that plays an important position but has too many question marks to be a top 10 pick (e.g. Raji, Everett Brown), or a player that they don't need because they have someone there already (e.g. Sanchez). The only guy that seems to make sense is Crabtree, and I don't feel comfortable burning a top 5 pick on him.

What is the incentive to stick around? If the Chiefs trade down, there's a good chance they'll get a guy they'd want at #3 (i.e. Raji or Everett Brown) anyway. And they'd get an extra pick to use on the top center, guard, or right tackle in the class.

You're going to pass up the opportunity to take 2 solid players over 1 good but not great player at #3 because you were upset they didn't throw a 3rd round pick in the mix?

As a hypothetical, the trade is Aaron Curry (as an ILB) for Rey Maualuga and Alex Mack, or Everett Brown and Alex Mack, or BJ Raji and Alex Mack, or Aaron Maybin and Alex Mack. Or Brian Cushing and Alex Mack. Etc.... (feel free to replace Mack with either Heyward-Bey or Max Unger). Any one of those combinations is far better than any option at #3. Therefore, it's a no-brainer--you obviously try to squeeze the most value you can get, but if it means giving up 800 points in value, the Chiefs still come out as big winners. To answer your question about Pioli, I believe he is smart enough to rely on his negotiations ability to dictate a deal, instead of relying on a piece of paper to decide what makes/breaks a deal.

Good post.

shitgoose
04-17-2009, 12:35 PM
You're welcome?

:clap:

the Talking Can
04-17-2009, 12:43 PM
2 appealing scenarios here, based on people believing that Seattle wants Sanchez

1. Snyder assumes the rape position for us and we name a price

2. Seattle, worried about how easy snyder is to rape, offers us a trade to swap spots...we get their second, and they get our 4th or 5th to make up for a 400 point difference...

Bowser
04-17-2009, 12:46 PM
2 appealing scenarios here, based on people believing that Seattle wants Sanchez

1. Snyder assumes the rape position for us and we name a price

2. Seattle, worried about how easy snyder is to rape, offers us a trade to swap spots...we get their second, and they get our 4th or 5th to make up for a 400 point difference...

I'd take the Snyder option, as he has proven to not be scared of giving up picks. Seattle would have to be absolutely convinced Denver or Wash was moving up.

the Talking Can
04-17-2009, 12:49 PM
Why is it idiotic? Because a draft chart that Mike Mayock said teams don't use anymore says it's idiotic?

There was never a more ideal situation for a trade down. If the Chiefs stick around at #3, they can either draft a player that provides low positional value (e.g. Curry as a 3-4 ILB, Monroe to upgrade the RT position), a player that plays an important position but has too many question marks to be a top 10 pick (e.g. Raji, Everett Brown), or a player that they don't need because they have someone there already (e.g. Sanchez). The only guy that seems to make sense is Crabtree, and I don't feel comfortable burning a top 5 pick on him.

What is the incentive to stick around? If the Chiefs trade down, there's a good chance they'll get a guy they'd want at #3 (i.e. Raji or Everett Brown) anyway. And they'd get an extra pick to use on the top center, guard, or right tackle in the class.

You're going to pass up the opportunity to take 2 solid players over 1 good but not great player at #3 because you were upset they didn't throw a 3rd round pick in the mix?

As a hypothetical, the trade is Aaron Curry (as an ILB) for Rey Maualuga and Alex Mack, or Everett Brown and Alex Mack, or BJ Raji and Alex Mack, or Aaron Maybin and Alex Mack. Or Brian Cushing and Alex Mack. Etc.... (feel free to replace Mack with either Heyward-Bey or Max Unger). Any one of those combinations is far better than any option at #3. Therefore, it's a no-brainer--you obviously try to squeeze the most value you can get, but if it means giving up 800 points in value, the Chiefs still come out as big winners. To answer your question about Pioli, I believe he is smart enough to rely on his negotiations ability to dictate a deal, instead of relying on a piece of paper to decide what makes/breaks a deal.

jesus

it is idiotic on its own terms

and it is idiotic because pioli would never give up that much value....

we fired Carl...we aren't playing the patsy for the league anymore...

bowener
04-17-2009, 01:19 PM
12th and 18th

Phillie has 21st and 27th. The Donks have the tools if they want to move up.

Realistically does any one on here think the Donks will give up both their 1st round picks?

I know they need a QB, but they need a lot of other players as well. Their D is going to be as bad as ours may be, and they have very few pieces for a 34.

Do you think it is more likely they will try to give us their 12th (1200 pts.), 48th (420 pts.), plus next years first rounder (if they pick 15th it would be around 604 points--read somewhere that future picks are at a 173.8% discount worth). That would be a total of 2224 points, or 24 more than our #3 is "worth".

If they want to squabble over the 24 pts. then we can give them our 6th (pos. 162) and lose out on 3.5 pts, or maybe they would accept a a flip of picks in the 6th, so we would draft 12th in that round, they would draft 2nd.

So, CP, would you accept:
-Pick 12 in the 2009 Draft
-Pick 48th in the 2009 Draft
-Unknown 2010 1st round draft position

for
Pick 3 in the 2009 draft

I figure if they have a new coach and a new QB, there are bound to be some growing pains, and a lot of losses for the donks, so hopefull that translates to a top 5-10 pick next year in the first for us as well. Just seems like a better idea for the broncos as well, as it lets them keep a first rounder this year to take a defender (which they need badly).

rad
04-17-2009, 01:36 PM
Funny... sure, anything can happen. But, I just don't see them making the trade of 12 and 18 to #3 with KC.

If you look at picks 4, 5, 6, 7 ... those teams are likely NOT taking a QB, but they are all obvious targets for other teams to trade up with if they want Sanchez or other.

So, the majority feeling is that KC will not take Sanchez... meaning that if Denver did want to trade up, there are 4 other less costly options. Do we really think the Jags will take him - I don't. Green Bay? No.

Looking at it in that light... why would #3 be so attractive if your goal is Sanchez?
<table celpadding="0" class="mini-tracker" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0"><thead><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr></thead> <tbody> <tr><td>1</td><td>Detroit Lions (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:det)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>2</td><td>St. Louis Rams (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:stl)</td></tr> <tr><td>3</td><td>Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:kc)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>4</td><td>Seattle Seahawks (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sea)</td></tr> <tr><td>5</td><td>Cleveland Browns (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:cle)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>6</td><td>Cincinnati Bengals (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:cin)</td></tr> <tr><td>7</td><td>Oakland Raiders (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:oak)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>8</td><td>Jacksonville Jaguars (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:jac)</td></tr> <tr><td>9</td><td>Green Bay Packers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:gb)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>10</td><td>San Francisco 49ers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sf)</td></tr> <tr><td>11</td><td>Buffalo Bills (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:buf)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>12</td><td>Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:dnt)</td></tr> <tr><td>13</td><td>Washington Redskins (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:was)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>14</td><td>New Orleans Saints (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:no)</td></tr> <tr><td>15</td><td>Houston Texans (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:hou)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>16</td><td>San Diego Chargers (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:sd)</td></tr> <tr><td>17</td><td>New York Jets (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:nyj)</td></tr> <tr class="alt"><td>18</td><td>Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2009/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-team/dt-by-team-input:den) (from Chicago)</td></tr></tbody></table>


Seeing who is in charge now at Dove Valley, I can see that trade happening.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2009, 01:37 PM
jesus

it is idiotic on its own terms

and it is idiotic because pioli would never give up that much value....

we fired Carl...we aren't playing the patsy for the league anymore...

Why are you so convinced that #1) this is giving up too much value, given that Mike Mayock reported that the draft chart isn't used that much anymore; #2) that Pioli would nix a trade if it was too far apart.

Because let me offer a contrarian view to that. Pioli is a guy who believes he is a very good drafter. He lives, breathes, and dies by the draft. I'm sure he is extremely proud of the fact that he stole both Brady and Cassel when everyone fell asleep on them. If you believe that, then you'll also believe that Pioli believes that he can do almost as well with a #20 pick as he would do with a guaranteed #3.

Because my read on Pioli is that he doesn't believe he has to draft high to do well in the draft. And I believe that he would rather have quantity of picks than quality. So when you try to read Pioli, why are you so convinced that he holds a really high value of the #3 pick? My opinion is that if Pioli could get two very good picks out of that #3 pick, he'd gladly take it, because Pioli believes that he can get two very good starters out of it as opposed to 1.

chiefzilla1501
04-17-2009, 01:40 PM
Why are you so convinced that #1) this is giving up too much value, given that Mike Mayock reported that the draft chart isn't used that much anymore; #2) that Pioli would nix a trade if it was too far apart.

Because let me offer a contrarian view to that. Pioli is a guy who believes he is a very good drafter. He lives, breathes, and dies by the draft. I'm sure he is extremely proud of the fact that he stole both Brady and Cassel when everyone fell asleep on them. If you believe that, then you'll also believe that Pioli believes that he can do almost as well with a #20 pick as he would do with a guaranteed #3.

Because my read on Pioli is that he doesn't believe he has to draft high to do well in the draft. And I believe that he would rather have quantity of picks than quality. So when you try to read Pioli, why are you so convinced that he holds a really high value of the #3 pick? My opinion is that if Pioli could get two very good picks out of that #3 pick, he'd gladly take it, because Pioli believes that he can get two very good starters out of it as opposed to 1.

Which, by the way, points out another flaw from your beloved draft chart that can do no wrong.

It assumes that the Patriots should offer the same value for a #3 pick as a team like the Lions. Does that make sense for you? It shouldn't.

If the Patriots get a 2nd and 3rd rounder, they are much more likely to get value out of that 2nd and 3rd rounder than the Lions because they have a much better scouting dep't and are much more likely to hit a home run with those picks. The Lions, on the other hand, need higher trade value because they need sure things (because their scouting dep't isn't good enough to recognize when you don't have a sure thing).

But lo and behold, the draft chart is the same for the Pats as it is for the Lions.

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 01:45 PM
So, CP, would you accept:
-Pick 12 in the 2009 Draft
-Pick 48th in the 2009 Draft
-Unknown 2010 1st round draft position

for
Pick 3 in the 2009 draft

I figure if they have a new coach and a new QB, there are bound to be some growing pains, and a lot of losses for the donks, so hopefull that translates to a top 5-10 pick next year in the first for us as well. Just seems like a better idea for the broncos as well, as it lets them keep a first rounder this year to take a defender (which they need badly).

I would take it. Next years class is good for defense and I would argue that Denver has the hardest schedule in the NFL next season.

Between that first next year and our first next year, I'd like our odds on getting one of the safties and maybe someone like Carlos Dunlap

rad
04-17-2009, 01:48 PM
Not anymore, he just got the same kind of QB from Chicago. The numb **** McKid traded our franchise QB and now has serviceable -manage -the -game guy. Same thing as Cassel.
None of that changes the fact that some of the dream scenarios on this thread are plain hilarious.

All it would take is a picture of Sanchez with a Matt Cassel wig on, dangle it front of McPuberty and X, and bam.......entire Donkey draft for #3.

Kyle DeLexus
04-17-2009, 01:50 PM
Why are you so convinced that #1) this is giving up too much value, given that Mike Mayock reported that the draft chart isn't used that much anymore; #2) that Pioli would nix a trade if it was too far apart.

Because let me offer a contrarian view to that. Pioli is a guy who believes he is a very good drafter. He lives, breathes, and dies by the draft. I'm sure he is extremely proud of the fact that he stole both Brady and Cassel when everyone fell asleep on them. If you believe that, then you'll also believe that Pioli believes that he can do almost as well with a #20 pick as he would do with a guaranteed #3.

Because my read on Pioli is that he doesn't believe he has to draft high to do well in the draft. And I believe that he would rather have quantity of picks than quality. So when you try to read Pioli, why are you so convinced that he holds a really high value of the #3 pick? My opinion is that if Pioli could get two very good picks out of that #3 pick, he'd gladly take it, because Pioli believes that he can get two very good starters out of it as opposed to 1.

Wow, are you Pioli's best friend or what? He did say in his latest interview Q: What’s the secret of finding players?

PIOLI: “As much as anything it’s about guys making themselves players. Tom Brady made himself a great player. We weren’t that smart. How smart could we have been? There was a guy we drafted in the fifth round before Brady that didn’t even make it through training camp. Tom Brady was one of the hardest workers as I’ve seen and Matt Cassel too. That wasn’t any stroke of genius by us. It’s not any set formula.”

vailpass
04-17-2009, 03:05 PM
All it would take is a picture of Sanchez with a Matt Cassel wig on, dangle it front of McPuberty and X, and bam.......entire Donkey draft for #3.

ROFL:doh!:

Saul Good
04-17-2009, 04:53 PM
If Sanchez were to develop into an elite QB, it's impossible to justify giving your division rival the single most important piece to the puzzle.

I think the Chiefs are in no position to worry about manipulating what other teams do. Pioli needs to worry about making the Chiefs as good as he possibly can. The rest will sort itself out.

PastorMikH
04-17-2009, 05:24 PM
3rd pick is generally worth 2200 on the charts. If Denver wants our third pick, any trade that doesn't add up to at least 3,000 points in picks coming to the Chiefs is too cheap IMO.

CupidStunt
04-17-2009, 05:27 PM
3rd pick is generally worth 2200 on the charts. If Denver wants our third pick, any trade that doesn't add up to at least 3,000 points in picks coming to the Chiefs is too cheap IMO.

LMAO

That might make a lick of sense if those "2200 points" would buy a franchise type of player. Shame it won't this year, and in reality they'll be getting a guy who's worth something like 1100 "points."

Mr. Krab
04-17-2009, 05:33 PM
[Originally Posted by DeezNutz http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5678178#post5678178)]
If Sanchez were to develop into an elite QB, it's impossible to justify giving your division rival the single most important piece to the puzzle.[/quote]
If Sanchez turns out to suck then we get to laugh all the way to the bank. All trades involve risk, especially about who wins in the long run. Pioli has traded within his division many times before including a Quarterback.

KCDC
04-17-2009, 07:20 PM
That might make a lick of sense if those "2200 points" would buy a franchise type of player. Shame it won't this year, and in reality they'll be getting a guy who's worth something like 1100 "points."

I agree. Take 1200 points and be happy.

Denver Dave
04-17-2009, 09:09 PM
Pat Bowlen is so cash strapped. He wants nothing to do with signing bonus price tag that comes with the 3rd overall pick.

KCrockaholic
04-17-2009, 11:22 PM
Orton and our 2 first round picks for Cassel and your first round pick. Final offer.

You dont understand that we are the ones running the show. We tell you what your gonna give us, not the other way around.

BTW thats a horrible offer anyway.

If the Donks want #3 we get to rape their ass for as many picks as we want.

Quesadilla Joe
04-18-2009, 03:10 AM
You dont understand that we are the ones running the show. We tell you what your gonna give us, not the other way around.

BTW thats a horrible offer anyway.

If the Donks want #3 we get to rape their ass for as many picks as we want.
The Chiefs don't have a lot of power with that number 3 pick. There isn't much of a drop off in talent from 1-10 to 11-20, and everyone knows that the Chiefs do not want Smith, Monroe, Sanchez, Stafford, or Crabtree. The Chiefs desperately want to trade down and will have to take a lot less in order to do so.

Denver doesn't need a LT or a WR. We can get a good LB at 12 or 18 and I don't think Denver really wants to draft a QB in the first round.

If Denver wants to trade up I think the highest we will go is to number 8.

rad
04-18-2009, 05:49 AM
The Chiefs don't have a lot of power with that number 3 pick. There isn't much of a drop off in talent from 1-10 to 11-20, and everyone knows that the Chiefs do not want Smith, Monroe, Sanchez, Stafford, or Crabtree. The Chiefs desperately want to trade down and will have to take a lot less in order to do so.

Denver doesn't need a LT or a WR. We can get a good LB at 12 or 18 and I don't think Denver really wants to draft a QB in the first round.

If Denver wants to trade up I think the highest we will go is to number 8.

How does everyone know that the Chiefs don't want Crabtree or Sanchez? When there's other teams that want to move up, that makes it our game.

Oh, and your coach wants our QB.

milkman
04-18-2009, 06:03 AM
I wouldnt. Sanchez isn't going to be shit. We will murder him just like we did Ryan Leaf.

You are seriously a dumbshit to draw that comparison.

milkman
04-18-2009, 06:06 AM
Who cares if Sanchez does turn out to be good - Denver's D has more holes than ours does and if they make that trade they are idiots. I would take their two 1sts the second it's offered run away and hide. They couldn't win crap w/ Cutler, it would be a pretty far stretch to think Sanchez would out-perform him and be good enought to make up for their lack of D.

And of course, we all know that there's no way that the Donkeys can get that defense fixed in the short 12-15 years that Sanchez would be there.

milkman
04-18-2009, 06:14 AM
I haven't either, but it has been very widely rumored that Reid wants Smith.

Again though, this is just what I HEARD here in Philly on sports talk radio.

I'm still trying to get use to having a competant GM, I keep waiting for him to f*ck up, then I remember he isn't Carl Peterson.

He already fucked up.

milkman
04-18-2009, 06:22 AM
Realistically does any one on here think the Donks will give up both their 1st round picks?

I know they need a QB, but they need a lot of other players as well. Their D is going to be as bad as ours may be, and they have very few pieces for a 34.

Do you think it is more likely they will try to give us their 12th (1200 pts.), 48th (420 pts.), plus next years first rounder (if they pick 15th it would be around 604 points--read somewhere that future picks are at a 173.8% discount worth). That would be a total of 2224 points, or 24 more than our #3 is "worth".

If they want to squabble over the 24 pts. then we can give them our 6th (pos. 162) and lose out on 3.5 pts, or maybe they would accept a a flip of picks in the 6th, so we would draft 12th in that round, they would draft 2nd.

So, CP, would you accept:
-Pick 12 in the 2009 Draft
-Pick 48th in the 2009 Draft
-Unknown 2010 1st round draft position

for
Pick 3 in the 2009 draft

I figure if they have a new coach and a new QB, there are bound to be some growing pains, and a lot of losses for the donks, so hopefull that translates to a top 5-10 pick next year in the first for us as well. Just seems like a better idea for the broncos as well, as it lets them keep a first rounder this year to take a defender (which they need badly).

If I'm the Donkeys I would rather give up the picks this year than next, when the quality of defensive players available is much better.

Quesadilla Joe
04-18-2009, 06:29 AM
How does everyone know that the Chiefs don't want Crabtree or Sanchez? When there's other teams that want to move up, that makes it our game.

Oh, and your coach wants our QB.

Well you wouldn't need Sanchez because you just traded for a QB and Crabtree just is not worth the money the 3rd pick gets.

Oh, and your QB sucks without our coach.

CupidStunt
04-18-2009, 06:58 AM
Oh, and your QB sucks without our coach.

Hence why he wanted him so much. Obviously.

Your coach is the joke of the league.

Mile High Mania
04-18-2009, 08:35 AM
I think that if some of you really think there is a shot of this happening (Den/KC trade), you're going to be disappointed. McD comes from a system that doesn't put high draft picks on positions like QB and RB.

McD's success has been due in large part to the guys that have been mid/late round picks.... will magic repeat itself? Who knows. But, why anyone expects this guy to do anything different compared to what he's used to is beyond me.

Brock
04-18-2009, 08:37 AM
I think that if some of you really think there is a shot of this happening (Den/KC trade), you're going to be disappointed. McD comes from a system that doesn't put high draft picks on positions like QB and RB.

McD's success has been due in large part to the guys that have been mid/late round picks.... will magic repeat itself? Who knows. But, why anyone expects this guy to do anything different compared to what he's used to is beyond me.

Why are they working out Sanchez?

Mile High Mania
04-18-2009, 08:41 AM
Why are they working out Sanchez?

Hmmm... I dunno. I've never heard of teams working out multiple players before. Hell, I guess you're right... Denver wants Sanchez.

Brock
04-18-2009, 08:43 AM
Hmmm... I dunno. I've never heard of teams working out multiple players before. Hell, I guess you're right... Denver wants Sanchez.

I have to chuckle at Denver fan's denials, just like when they were all going all Iraqi Information Minister over the Cutler situation. ROFL

Mile High Mania
04-18-2009, 08:50 AM
I have to chuckle at Denver fan's denials, just like when they were all going all Iraqi Information Minister over the Cutler situation. ROFL

Well, it's not like KC fans are 100% accurate all the time either...

We all play our part, we believe in our teams and back 'em up with blind faith most of the time. I honestly don't think Sanchez is a serious "trade up" consideration for Denver.

Are you really thinking that his workout is solid proof of their true intent in R1... you've never seen teams try to hide their hand or throw up smoke screens?

Ah well, we'll see what happens.

Brock
04-18-2009, 08:54 AM
Are you really thinking that his workout is solid proof of their true intent in R1... you've never seen teams try to hide their hand or throw up smoke screens?

Ah well, we'll see what happens.

Judging from how well Denver hid their intentions a month ago?

milkman
04-18-2009, 09:04 AM
I think that if some of you really think there is a shot of this happening (Den/KC trade), you're going to be disappointed. McD comes from a system that doesn't put high draft picks on positions like QB and RB.

McD's success has been due in large part to the guys that have been mid/late round picks.... will magic repeat itself? Who knows. But, why anyone expects this guy to do anything different compared to what he's used to is beyond me.

I think you're a pretty smart guy, for a Donkey fan, but using New England's draft record as proof that the Donkeys wouldn't draft a QB high is pretty dumb.

The Patriots had Drew Bledsoe already when BB and SP arrived, and then got lucky to find a 6th round gem to replace Bledsoe when he got injured, and that lucky 6th round gem went on to become the best QB in the league.

The Patriots haven't drafted a QB high in the draft because they never had the need.

BigRock
04-18-2009, 09:22 AM
McD's success has been due in large part to the guys that have been mid/late round picks.... will magic repeat itself? Who knows. But, why anyone expects this guy to do anything different compared to what he's used to is beyond me.

What he's used to doing is coaching a QB that Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli drafted for him. Is that going to be happening again any time in the near future?

Apparently, from what you're saying, the logic in Denver isn't that Belichick and/or Pioli had an eye for QB talent in the late rounds, hence producing both Tom Brady and Matt Cassel. But instead, it's that Josh "Magic Man" McDaniels waved a wand and made both Brady and Cassel into good QBs... even though Brady already had two Super Bowl rings before McDaniels became the Pats' QB coach.

And, because of that unique ability he has of turning water into wine, McDaniels doesn't need a top QB prospect. He'll just work his magic again on a mid/late round pick.

Is that really the way people are viewing the situation? Because I can only hope that McDaniels sees it that way.

Mile High Mania
04-18-2009, 09:24 AM
I think you're a pretty smart guy, for a Donkey fan, but using New England's draft record as proof that the Donkeys wouldn't draft a QB high is pretty dumb.

The Patriots had Drew Bledsoe already when BB and SP arrived, and then got lucky to find a 6th round gem to replace Bledsoe when he got injured, and that lucky 6th round gem went on to become the best QB in the league.

The Patriots haven't drafted a QB high in the draft because they never had the need.

Ok, it's dumb for me to use the history that McD is familiar with, but logical for you guys to use it when guesstimating about what Pioli will do.

Ahh, I get it. You missed the point of my comment... McD comes from a system that reached great heights with a R6 QB and they won 11 games with Cassel (R7 guy).

Sure, anything can happen... but the last 2 QBs that have been successful under McD were forgotten guys in the draft. I think that plays a big role here. Plus... it doesn't appear that DEN has the cash to pay top 5 QB money this year, which is another reason I don't think this will happen.

I know this is reaching back into history to draw a comparison, so don't freak out... but McD is also used to having success with a team that has a very sound defense, which Denver did not have in 2008. So, scrapping those 2 R1 picks and avoiding the chance to address DEF there just doesn't seem like a path they'll take to me.

But, I digress... you guys think they're dead set on sending KC two R1 picks for Sanchez, so it must be so.

Mile High Mania
04-18-2009, 09:25 AM
What he's used to doing is coaching a QB that Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli drafted for him. Is that going to be happening again any time in the near future?

Apparently, from what you're saying, the logic in Denver isn't that Belichick and/or Pioli had an eye for QB talent in the late rounds, hence producing both Tom Brady and Matt Cassel. But instead, it's that Josh "Magic Man" McDaniels waved a wand and made both Brady and Cassel into good QBs... even though Brady already had two Super Bowl rings before McDaniels became the Pats' QB coach.

And, because of that unique ability he has of turning water into wine, McDaniels doesn't need a top QB prospect. He'll just work his magic again on a mid/late round pick.

Is that really the way people are viewing the situation? Because I can only hope that McDaniels sees it that way.

No, that's not what I said at all...

I took nothing away from BB or SP and made no attempt to make McD out to be more than he is... but, twist it however you like.

Frankie
04-18-2009, 09:26 AM
Well you wouldn't need Sanchez because you just traded for a QB and Crabtree just is not worth the money the 3rd pick gets.

Oh, and your QB sucks without our coach.

He'll be our QB coach soon enough.

milkman
04-18-2009, 09:46 AM
Ok, it's dumb for me to use the history that McD is familiar with, but logical for you guys to use it when guesstimating about what Pioli will do.

Ahh, I get it. You missed the point of my comment... McD comes from a system that reached great heights with a R6 QB and they won 11 games with Cassel (R7 guy).

Sure, anything can happen... but the last 2 QBs that have been successful under McD were forgotten guys in the draft. I think that plays a big role here. Plus... it doesn't appear that DEN has the cash to pay top 5 QB money this year, which is another reason I don't think this will happen.

I know this is reaching back into history to draw a comparison, so don't freak out... but McD is also used to having success with a team that has a very sound defense, which Denver did not have in 2008. So, scrapping those 2 R1 picks and avoiding the chance to address DEF there just doesn't seem like a path they'll take to me.

But, I digress... you guys think they're dead set on sending KC two R1 picks for Sanchez, so it must be so.

No, actually I agree with you that the Donkeys will stay where they are and take defnse.

I'm just saying that the Patriots history has no bearing on what the Donkeys will do in this draft, and I've been consistent with that.

I've told Chiefs fans that Patriots history has no bearing on what Scott Pioli will do.

Mile High Mania
04-18-2009, 10:03 AM
No, actually I agree with you that the Donkeys will stay where they are and take defnse.

I'm just saying that the Patriots history has no bearing on what the Donkeys will do in this draft, and I've been consistent with that.

I've told Chiefs fans that Patriots history has no bearing on what Scott Pioli will do.

Cool... and I agree that the past histories with NE can't be used as templates for what will happen in KC and DEN, but they can be used as barometers of what to expect.

orange
04-18-2009, 10:09 AM
No, actually I agree with you that the Donkeys will stay where they are and take defnse.

I'm just saying that the Patriots history has no bearing on what the Donkeys will do in this draft, and I've been consistent with that.

I've told Chiefs fans that Patriots history has no bearing on what Scott Pioli will do.

You're a bit wrong, though. Pioli has emphasized that the Patriots always wanted "strong, smart, tough players" - look for both the Chiefs and the Broncos to avoid the "weak, dumb, pansies" that the rest of the league covets.

milkman
04-18-2009, 10:14 AM
You're a bit wrong, though. Pioli has emphasized that the Patriots always wanted "strong, smart, tough players" - look for both the Chiefs and the Broncos to avoid the "weak, dumb, pansies" that the rest of the league covets.

I guess you think that was a funny post.

I bet jokes like that have the short bus just rolling.

Mr. Krab
04-18-2009, 10:24 AM
Cassel for the Donks #12 straight up.

BigRock
04-18-2009, 10:40 AM
No, that's not what I said at all...

I took nothing away from BB or SP and made no attempt to make McD out to be more than he is... but, twist it however you like.

You said:

McD's success has been due in large part to the guys that have been mid/late round picks.

Then you said

why anyone expects this guy to do anything different compared to what he's used to is beyond me

To combine both statements, you're saying McDaniels' "magic" (your word) has come with late round players and why would anyone expect him to do anything different?

What has been twisted there? Nothing. That's what you said. The inference being that McDaniels wouldn't go after someone like Sanchez because he's capable of getting success out of late-round QBs.

Except if McDaniels really thought that, then he'd be saying the reason he had success with late round QBs was due to himself, not because of Belichick or Pioli or Brady or Cassel or anyone else who's not there with him in Denver. It was all him, 100% McD, so he could keep on doing it that way now that he's on his own and he'd still be successful.

And if that's actually what he thinks, good luck with all that.