3 NFL draft scenarios

[AustinChief]

Which of the following three (all unlikely) scenarios would you prefer... if you HAD to pick one of them.

#1 Chiefs trade 2012 1st and 2nd picks and 2013 1st and 2nd to move up enough spots to grab RGIII

#2 Matt Kalil somehow slides to the Chiefs at the #10 spot

#3 Chiefs take Trent Richardson at #10

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Which of the following three (all unlikely) scenarios would you prefer... if you HAD to pick one of them.

#1 Chiefs trade 2012 1st and 2nd picks and 2013 1st and 2nd to move up enough spots to grab RGIII

#2 Matt Kalil somehow slides to the Chiefs at the #10 spot

#3 Chiefs take Trent Richardson at #10

Chiefs will be picking number 11

[AustinChief]

Chiefs will be picking number 11

Whatever.. replace #10 with #9-14.. it doesn't matter for the purposes of this poll.

[Bane]

Option # 1.Fuck it,how much worse could things get?

[L.A. Chieffan]

Trade up to take best ol available

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

trade down scenario

[Bane]

We have to get a real QB at any cost.The end.

[tredadda]

I chose option #1. We need to draft a franchise QB. Nothing is more important than that and unless we do that no other pick will take us to the SB. I will give up whatever it takes to get either RGIII or even Luck.

[suds79]

Option 1.

I can't take another year of watching Matt Cassel or Kyle Orton QB this team.

[tredadda]

trade down scenario

Why?

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Why?

What makes you think Pioli is ready to give up on cassel? Pioli ego wont let him give up

[tredadda]

What makes you think Pioli is ready to give up on cassel? Pioli ego wont let him give up

The question asked what would YOU do, not Pioli unless you are Pioli. :hmmm:

[Munson]

Option #1. We've gotta draft our franchise QB sooner or later.

[FloridaMan88]

If the Chiefs are dumb enough to take a RB in the top 10 then the franchise should be contracted.

[Rain Man]

I want a franchise QB as much as anybody, but 2 1sts and 2 2nds is too much.

[AustinChief]

I want a franchise QB as much as anybody, but 2 1sts and 2 2nds is too much.

yeah.. it's just PAST the line for me... a little less and I'd jump at it. 2 1sts and a 2nd and 4th or even 3rd would probably be ok with me. I tried to make the choice as tough as possible.

[Bane]

I want a franchise QB as much as anybody, but 2 1sts and 2 2nds is too much.

With all due respect sir,those draft pics won't matter if we don't have a QB.

[Coogs]

I want a franchise QB as much as anybody, but 2 1sts and 2 2nds is too much.

It's really only one 1st rounder... the 2013 pick that we would be giving up. The other one in 2012 is just a swap of spots.

[the Talking Can]

I want a franchise QB as much as anybody, but 2 1sts and 2 2nds is too much.

yeah, we should stick with orton and save those picks for drafting players whose careers will be wasted because we don't have a franchise QB...

[TimeForWasp]

Kalil for the kill. Then pick best Qb we can get.

[el borracho]

Well, I don't really like any of the options. My first preference would be to package fewer picks with one of our defensive play-makers to move up and grab Griffin or perhaps Bradford. Of the choices given, I would probably trade way down for future picks to use as ammo in the 2013 draft.

[Chiefnj2]

Baldwin, Berry, Hudson and Dex for a franchise QB? Any day of the week.

[the Talking Can]

Baldwin, Berry, Hudson and Dex for a franchise QB? Any day of the week.

every day of the year

[Okie_Apparition]

Any QB that jumps from meh to top 3 in a few months
ain't worth two year's 1s & 2s

[MahiMike]

While I'd like to see RGIII too, he'll be unavailable. I'd like Richardson or OL.

[crazycoffey]

What makes you think Pioli is ready to give up on cassel? Pioli ego wont let him give up

Stop saying this, it's really stupid.

[crazycoffey]

Baldwin, Berry, Hudson and Dex for a franchise QB? Any day of the week.


Don't you think the team is pretty young already? why not keep young players and trade the picks?
That is provide the QB is really worth the trade. And I don't really know for sure that any of them are.

[ILChief]

Baldwin, Berry, Hudson and Dex for a franchise QB? Any day of the week.

I'm leery of RG3 as an NFL QB. For Luck or Barkley, I'd do it.

[Window Licking Whiner]

Don't you think the team is pretty young already? why not keep young players and trade the picks?
That is provide the QB is really worth the trade. And I don't really know for sure that any of them are.

Have any of the QB's we've had won us a superbowl? The bar cant get any lower, when talking about Chiefs and our QB's you have no where to go but up!

I know that none of our QB's on the roster (save for maybe stanzi) are for our future. Isnt it time to change that? Go ditka and get us RG or Luck..whatever it takes

[Titty Meat]

#1

[tredadda]

Any QB that jumps from meh to top 3 in a few months
ain't worth two year's 1s & 2s

So you wouldn't do that for Cam Newton? He was playing at a JC the year before he won it all at Auburn. Granted he was talented and went there due to other reasons, but even if he had stayed at Florida it is highly doubtful he would have unseated Tebow. Players do get better. They can go from MEH to superstar overnight.

[hometeam]

I picked option 1, but I dont see the chiefs having to give up all of that to move up the few spots needed to grab him.

[tredadda]

I picked option 1, but I dont see the chiefs having to give up all of that to move up the few spots needed to grab him.

Its really only a first and 2 seconds. That is not that much to give up really for either of these guys. I think too many see two firsts but fail to realize if we trade our first this year we are essentially just trading draft position so it is a push.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I want a franchise QB as much as anybody, but 2 1sts and 2 2nds is too much.

1) Then you don't because
2) It isn't

[Dr. Gigglepants]

Any QB that jumps from meh to top 3 in a few months
ain't worth two year's 1s & 2s

He's been top 3 for a long time. The first Thursday night college game of the season was an RGIII hype fest versus TCU. This has been in the works since last year.

[Thig Lyfe]

I'm leery of RG3 as an NFL QB. For Luck or Barkley, I'd do it.

Racist.

[malachi47000]

My choice would be do give up the draft picks and go for the QB. Clearly they have a lot of solid pieces and with a couple decent free agent pickups along with the draft I think that the Chiefs could afford to give up next years 1st and 2nd.....Problem however is that Pioli will not give up that many draft picks on a hunch. Haley has already been shown the door and if Pioli doesn't do well in the next year or two, he will be shown the door as well. I think he tries to play it safe as possible and goes with B.P.A. instead.

[Frankie]

I would trade down and get someone like Tannehill* at value + some extra picks.

(* = If he does well in the post season.)

[Chiefaholic]

As much as I'd hate to miss out on future draft picks, we NEED a franchise QB. It's a risk I'd be willing to take, expecially if it were Luck rather than RGIII

[007]

none of those scenarios will even happen.

[AustinChief]

none of those scenarios will even happen.

probably not, it was a poll built to gauge how far people want to go for a qb

hence why I stated they were unlikely.

[007]

probably not, it was a poll built to gauge how far people want to go for a qb

hence why I stated they were unlikely.

Personally, I think half the STH base could abandon their tickets next year stating it is because we still have Cassel and the Pioli still would not draft a QB.

[Chiefnj2]

Don't you think the team is pretty young already? why not keep young players and trade the picks?
That is provide the QB is really worth the trade. And I don't really know for sure that any of them are.

I would keep those players. I was using them as an example of what you'd be losing if you traded the picks for the player. I could have used 2009 instead, but that would have made it a very easy decision.

[CaliforniaChief]

#1. We could use our cap space and middle/lower round picks to build the line/depth. We should pay whatever it takes to get a QB.

[Sofa King]

If you didn't pick trade up for RGIII then you are one hateful mother fucker.

[Saul Good]

I would trade down and get someone like Tannehill* at value + some extra picks.

(* = If he does well in the post season.)

Good call. It's always smart to base whether or not you draft a player based on a shitty bowl game.

[Frankie]

Good call. It's always smart to base whether or not you draft a player based on a shitty bowl game.

Post season is not just a bowl game. I'm referring to Tannehill's performance in the Senior Bowl, combines, etc. as well. His college resume is not bad. This post season will either show him to be a good NFL prospect or expose him as a crappy one.

I think I am the one being realistic, instead of wet-dreaming about one of the "elite" QB prospects.

[Hammock Parties]

If we draft RGIII, I'm changing my forum name to Gold-Toof-Dawg

[Hammock Parties]

none of those scenarios will even happen.

Then HTF are we drafting? Vontaze Burfict?

[Hammock Parties]

1) Then you don't because
2) It isn't

Yep.

2 1sts and 2 2nds is really just:

1 1st and 2 2nds, because you'd have to spend a 1st on a QB anyway.

Second-round picks are a crapshoot. You lose one first-round draft pick that would be spent on, what, a NT? A RT? And you gain a potential franchise QB.

No brainer.

[Micjones]

I wish there were a "stay put and draft Tannehill" option.

[durtyrute]

The qb doesn't matter. It will only take three games of sucking before the fans will want the back up, ala Palko. Haley was blasted for giving the guy a shot, how is that going to be any different than some rook?

[Hammock Parties]

Haley was blasted for giving the guy a shot, how is that going to be any different than some rook?

Because a rookie might actually show something...

[durtyrute]

Because a rookie might actually show something...

Palko flashed, (tiny, tiny, mini, kid camera flashes), but they were flashes. He had command of the offense and had a few nice throws. The rook won't step in and have instant command of his own dick let alone the whole offense.

[Micjones]

Palko flashed, (tiny, tiny, mini, kid camera flashes), but they were flashes. He had command of the offense and had a few nice throws. The rook won't step in and have instant command of his own dick let alone the whole offense.

A rookie would have an NFL skillset.
Palko did not.

[Hammock Parties]

Palko flashed, (tiny, tiny, mini, kid camera flashes), but they were flashes. He had command of the offense and had a few nice throws. The rook won't step in and have instant command of his own dick let alone the whole offense.

No, he was garbage. Couldn't throw for shit past 10 yards.

Even rookie QBs, if they have actual NFL talent, can do that. See Andy Dalton.

[Frankie]

I wish there were a "stay put and draft Tannehill" option.

I don't think Tannehill will go that high, hence my wish to trade down and draft him.

[durtyrute]

A rookie would have an NFL skillset.
Palko did not.

I'm not a Palko lover or anything. I'm just saying that I don't think the fans have the patience for a rookie qb. Not every rookie will have an NFL skillset. Not every first round rookie will have said skill set either. It could take a minute for said rook to develop and based on what I saw from folks on here when Palko was playing, people don't seem willing to wait for the development. If Stanzi came in and played like Palko, do you think people would want him back next year?

[Micjones]

I don't think Tannehill will go that high, hence my wish to trade down and draft him.

That might happen. We may be able to trade back to, say, 14 and take him.

[durtyrute]

No, he was garbage. Couldn't throw for shit past 10 yards.

Even rookie QBs, if they have actual NFL talent, can do that. See Andy Dalton.

He made some plays, but he made a lot more mistakes I know. I'm saying most rookies will do the same thing. Some less, some more, it just depends on who it is, Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert.

[Hammock Parties]

He made some plays, but he made a lot more mistakes I know. I'm saying most rookies will do the same thing.

A rookie QB with actual talent would completely outclass Palko. Fans would have a lot more patience.

[durtyrute]

That might happen. We may be able to trade back to, say, 14 and take him.

I'm for that. I don't follow college that closely, but I'd rather trade back, get more picks and take the 5th best qb than trade up, give up the fucking farm, and take the second best.

[durtyrute]

A rookie QB with actual talent would completely outclass Palko. Fans would have a lot more patience.

You're right, and I hope so.

[Micjones]

I'm not a Palko lover or anything. I'm just saying that I don't think the fans have the patience for a rookie qb. Not every rookie will have an NFL skillset. Not every first round rookie will have said skill set either.

I can't think of one single QB, who'll be drafted in Round 1, that has an arm like Tyler Palko.

It could take a minute for said rook to develop and based on what I saw from folks on here when Palko was playing, people don't seem willing to wait for the development. If Stanzi came in and played like Palko, do you think people would want him back next year?

Are you really a Palko apologist or are you merely trying to make the point that this fanbase isn't as patient as it needs to be with a young QB?

[Rain Man]

1) Then you don't because
2) It isn't


What about giving up 12 1sts and 16 2nds for RGIII?

If you say no, then we've established that there is some limit on what people would trade up for to get a 1st round QB. The question is merely where the limit is.

And my take is that rather than pay 2 1sts and 2 2nds, let's see who's available with our 1st as it stands. Looking at the ten years from 1997 through 2006 (throwing out the last five years since we don't know career arcs yet), here are the quarterbacks drafted in the first 9 picks:

Group 1

Vince Young
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Byron Leftwich
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Donovan McNabb
Akili Smith
Peyton Manning
Ryan Leaf


Here are the quarterbacks drafted in picks 10 through 19:

Group 2

Matt Leinert
Jay Cutler
Ben Roethlisberger
Kyle Boller
Chad Pennington
Daunte Culpepper
Cade McNown

Here are quarterbacks taken in picks 20 through 31 in that period:

Group 3

Jim Druckenmiller
Patrick Ramsey
Rex Grossman
J.P. Losman
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell

Here are quarterbacks taken in the 2nd round in that period:

Group 4

Jake Plummer
Charlie Batch
Shaun King
Drew Brees
Quincy Carter
Marques Tuiasasopo
Tarvaris Jackson

So would I rather have one pull on the slot machine from Group 1, or would I rather have one pull in Group 2, one in Group 3, and 2 in Group 4? We could probably do the math, but offhand it seems to me like I'd rather have more pulls on the slot machine, because I see some pretty good quarterbacks in that group and I have more tries to get them.

I don't know if there's a salary cap deal, but I think mathematically you'd be better off drafting QB after QB with all those picks until one of them works out. Not to mention the fact that if your first or second guy works out then you can redirect the later picks since they're not all happening this year.

So the bottom line is that turning down a trade of 2 1sts and 2 2nds isn't a statement that I don't want a franchise QB. It's a statement that there may be a better option for getting one. In this case it would be flooding your roster with QBs using those picks and hoping that one of them is the next Brees or Rodgers or Roethlisberger.

[Frankie]

That might happen. We may be able to trade back to, say, 14 and take him.

Without the benefit of observing him in post season, I say that seems like a good move.

[durtyrute]

I can't think of one single QB, who'll be drafted in Round 1, that has an arm like Tyler Palko.



Are you really a Palko apologist or are you merely trying to make the point that this fanbase isn't as patient as it needs to be with a young QB?

The latter, I don't give two fucks about Palkisy. I'm just saying that it might take time for the qb to develop and I wonder if people have that kind of patience.

[durtyrute]

What about giving up 12 1sts and 16 2nds for RGIII?

If you say no, then we've established that there is some limit on what people would trade up for to get a 1st round QB. The question is merely where the limit is.

And my take is that rather than pay 2 1sts and 2 2nds, let's see who's available with our 1st as it stands. Looking at the ten years from 1997 through 2006 (throwing out the last five years since we don't know career arcs yet), here are the quarterbacks drafted in the first 9 picks:

Group 1

Vince Young
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Byron Leftwich
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Donovan McNabb
Akili Smith
Peyton Manning
Ryan Leaf


Here are the quarterbacks drafted in picks 10 through 19:

Group 2

Matt Leinert
Jay Cutler
Ben Roethlisberger
Kyle Boller
Chad Pennington
Daunte Culpepper
Cade McNown

Here are quarterbacks taken in picks 20 through 31 in that period:

Group 3

Jim Druckenmiller
Patrick Ramsey
Rex Grossman
J.P. Losman
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell

Here are quarterbacks taken in the 2nd round in that period:

Group 4

Jake Plummer
Charlie Batch
Shaun King
Drew Brees
Quincy Carter
Marques Tuiasasopo
Tarvaris Jackson

So would I rather have one pull on the slot machine from Group 1, or would I rather have one pull in Group 2, one in Group 3, and 2 in Group 4? We could probably do the math, but offhand it seems to me like I'd rather have more pulls on the slot machine, because I see some pretty good quarterbacks in that group and I have more tries to get them.

I don't know if there's a salary cap deal, but I think mathematically you'd be better off drafting QB after QB with all those picks until one of them works out. Not to mention the fact that if your first or second guy works out then you can redirect the later picks since they're not all happening this year.

So the bottom line is that turning down a trade of 2 1sts and 2 2nds isn't a statement that I don't want a franchise QB. It's a statement that there may be a better option for getting one. In this case it would be flooding your roster with QBs using those picks and hoping that one of them is the next Brees or Rodgers or Roethlisberger.

Thank you for taking the time to put this together, hopefully more people will see it and realize that we don't need to give up our next three years first to get a qb that will be successful.

[Hammock Parties]

The latter, I don't give two fucks about Palkisy. I'm just saying that it might take time for the qb to develop and I wonder if people have that kind of patience.

People had a lot of patience with Cassel, and he was playing like a rookie.

[Okie_Apparition]

The offense looked like a real offense with Palko at the helm
Cassel exposed all the offense's flaws & Palko just exposed his own flaws
Cassel made everything worse

[durtyrute]

People had a lot of patience with Cassel, and he was playing like a rookie.

It seemed like some did and most didn't. People on here have hated Cassel since day one.

[Chiefnj2]

The latter, I don't give two ****s about Palkisy. I'm just saying that it might take time for the qb to develop and I wonder if people have that kind of patience.

Did you just come to the Planet? Of course people won't have patience. That is especially true if they draft a QB the majority doesn't want like Jones. Jones will be declared a bust 10 seconds after he's drafted. RGIII will be declared a bust after KC's 2nd game. Tannehill, because of his lack of experience, will be declared a bust after game 6 when Orton/Cassel are still starting.

[Okie_Apparition]

LEt them eat Landry Jones

[durtyrute]

Did you just come to the Planet? Of course people won't have patience. That is especially true if they draft a QB the majority doesn't want like Jones. Jones will be declared a bust 10 seconds after he's drafted. RGIII will be declared a bust after KC's 2nd game. Tannehill, because of his lack of experience, will be declared a bust after game 6 when Orton/Cassel are still starting.

:LOL: I know, it's crazy.

[The Franchise]

What about giving up 12 1sts and 16 2nds for RGIII?

If you say no, then we've established that there is some limit on what people would trade up for to get a 1st round QB. The question is merely where the limit is.

And my take is that rather than pay 2 1sts and 2 2nds, let's see who's available with our 1st as it stands. Looking at the ten years from 1997 through 2006 (throwing out the last five years since we don't know career arcs yet), here are the quarterbacks drafted in the first 9 picks:

Group 1

Vince Young
Alex Smith
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Byron Leftwich
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Donovan McNabb
Akili Smith
Peyton Manning
Ryan Leaf


Here are the quarterbacks drafted in picks 10 through 19:

Group 2

Matt Leinert
Jay Cutler
Ben Roethlisberger
Kyle Boller
Chad Pennington
Daunte Culpepper
Cade McNown

Here are quarterbacks taken in picks 20 through 31 in that period:

Group 3

Jim Druckenmiller
Patrick Ramsey
Rex Grossman
J.P. Losman
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell

Here are quarterbacks taken in the 2nd round in that period:

Group 4

Jake Plummer
Charlie Batch
Shaun King
Drew Brees
Quincy Carter
Marques Tuiasasopo
Tarvaris Jackson

So would I rather have one pull on the slot machine from Group 1, or would I rather have one pull in Group 2, one in Group 3, and 2 in Group 4? We could probably do the math, but offhand it seems to me like I'd rather have more pulls on the slot machine, because I see some pretty good quarterbacks in that group and I have more tries to get them.

I don't know if there's a salary cap deal, but I think mathematically you'd be better off drafting QB after QB with all those picks until one of them works out. Not to mention the fact that if your first or second guy works out then you can redirect the later picks since they're not all happening this year.

So the bottom line is that turning down a trade of 2 1sts and 2 2nds isn't a statement that I don't want a franchise QB. It's a statement that there may be a better option for getting one. In this case it would be flooding your roster with QBs using those picks and hoping that one of them is the next Brees or Rodgers or Roethlisberger.

The thing is.....is no franchise is going to go out and draft a QB in the 1st round one year....and then go out and use another 1st round and 2nd round pick on QBs the following year.

[Rain Man]

So if I look at those groups I referred to earlier, let's assume the following:

In Group 1, Manning, Rivers, McNabb, and Whiny Manning are franchise QBs. That's a stretch with Rivers and Whiny, but let's give it to them. So 4 of the 14 are franchise QBs, meaning you had a 28 percent chance of success.

In Group 2, Roethlisberger is a franchise QB. 1 in 7 chance, or 14 percent. We'll ignore Cutler and Culpepper to be conserve, though one could make a case that they're equivalent to the whiny Manning.

In Group 3, Rodgers is a franchise QB. 1 in 6 chance, or 17 percent.

In Group 4, Brees is a franchise QB. 1 in 7 chance or 14 percent.

So you take a top 10 pick and you have a 28 percent chance of success.

If you draft a QB from Group 2, Group 3, and 2 from Group 4, the odds of getting a franchise QB are:

1 - [6/7*5/6*6/7*6/7) = 48%

Would you rather have a 48% chance of winning or a 28% chance of winning?

[Rain Man]

The thing is.....is no franchise is going to go out and draft a QB in the 1st round one year....and then go out and use another 1st round and 2nd round pick on QBs the following year.

Why not? They should.

Unless there's a salary cap issue, they should absolutely draft QB after QB until they get The Big Gun. If the QB is that important - and we all recognize that he is since the league has screwed up the offense/defense balance so badly - then you get the QB in the most efficient manner possible.

[Chiefaholic]

I'd like to see Pioli on the phone non-stop trying to trade up until both Luck and RGIII are off the board. If that doesn't happen, then wait and see if Richardson drops to #10. If he's taken before us, then get back on the phone and talk to multiple teams about different trading down scenarios to acquire Jones or Tannehill and more draft picks to fill other positions of need.

In this draft I'd like to see Pioli address a starter QB, RT, best C or LG available, FS, and ILB

[Micjones]

I want a franchise QB as much as anybody, but 2 1sts and 2 2nds is too much.

I think so too, but that was the clearly the best option of the three listed in the poll.

[Micjones]

In this draft I'd like to see Pioli address a starter QB, RT, best C or LG available, FS, and ILB

FS and ILB for depth purposes?

[Okie_Apparition]

Snyder will throw his yacht into the bidding war. WHile the Rat has visions of bootlegs

[durtyrute]

So if I look at those groups I referred to earlier, let's assume the following:

In Group 1, Manning, Rivers, McNabb, and Whiny Manning are franchise QBs. That's a stretch with Rivers and Whiny, but let's give it to them. So 4 of the 14 are franchise QBs, meaning you had a 28 percent chance of success.

In Group 2, Roethlisberger is a franchise QB. 1 in 7 chance, or 14 percent. We'll ignore Cutler and Culpepper to be conserve, though one could make a case that they're equivalent to the whiny Manning.

In Group 3, Rodgers is a franchise QB. 1 in 6 chance, or 17 percent.

In Group 4, Brees is a franchise QB. 1 in 7 chance or 14 percent.

So you take a top 10 pick and you have a 28 percent chance of success.

If you draft a QB from Group 2, Group 3, and 2 from Group 4, the odds of getting a franchise QB are:

1 - [6/7*5/6*6/7*6/7) = 48%

Would you rather have a 48% chance of winning or a 28% chance of winning?

I like where you are going, but you can't do the math like that. It would be a 28% chance vs a 14 or 17% chance. You can't add up the percentages unless you pick a qb in each of those rounds.

[L.A. Chieffan]

We got Cassell and Orton, why the hell are we looking for another qb? We need linemen people.

[Rain Man]

I like where you are going, but you can't do the math like that. It would be a 28% chance vs a 14 or 17% chance. You can't add up the percentages unless you pick a qb in each of those rounds.

That's what I'm arguing, though. Instead of taking one high QB by trading those four picks, you have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by taking four QBs with those four picks and letting them duke it out in training camp.

[durtyrute]

That's what I'm arguing, though. Instead of taking one high QB by trading those four picks, you have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by taking four QBs with those four picks and letting them duke it out in training camp.

Ahh okay. It makes perfect sense, but no team will ever do that. That would be pretty cool though. We have one fifth rounder, now just draft a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round qb and we will have great odds to be in the superbowl in 3 years.

I'm in

[Rain Man]

Ahh okay. It makes perfect sense, but no team will ever do that. That would be pretty cool though. We have one fifth rounder, now just draft a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round qb and we will have great odds to be in the superbowl in 3 years.

I'm in


I think teams don't do it because it would be viewed as wasted picks since you'll end up cutting some of them. But big deal. The league screwed up the rules and made QBs into god, so waste the picks until you get a franchise QB and then build around him. Plus, you could probably trade the QBs and get something out of them as you sort through them. People have traded for guys like Rick Mirer and Matt Cassel, so they'll trade for that second-round guy who didn't win the starting job.

I really think that this is a viable outside-the-box strategy.

[Chiefnj2]

That's what I'm arguing, though. Instead of taking one high QB by trading those four picks, you have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by taking four QBs with those four picks and letting them duke it out in training camp.

Good luck trying to develop them. There are only so many snaps someone can take with the first team.

[Chiefaholic]

FS and ILB for depth purposes?

I meant to type SS, rather than FS... McGraw has to go and let the rook fight it out with Washington, Langford, and Lewis (if he can play SS). At ILB, Belcher has shown progression, but Williams and Greenwood haven't impressed me at all. The rook could come in and fight it out with Belcher and at the very least add depth at a position we're extremely thin at talent.

On another position of need, a big 'ol boy with tree stumps for legs needs to be drafted to compete with Powe at NT.

[cdcox]

I really think that this is a viable outside-the-box strategy.

I agree, but you would need two or three years to sort through each crop. Give them all playing experience in their first year in proportion to their initial perceived value. In season 2 you would refine it with more playing time being given to top performers and so on. I don't think any of them would get better just sitting on the bench. I also don't think you can just play a rookie week after week without working on fundamentals. I think that alternating playing time and prolonged periods to work on fundamentals without the pressure of getting ready to play a game would be the way to get the most of out of a prospect. You probably need a couple of good QB coaches too.

NFL teams don't seem to do much to develop and nurture young QB talent.

[Rain Man]

I agree, but you would need two or three years to sort through each crop. Give them all playing experience in their first year in proportion to their initial perceived value. In season 2 you would refine it with more playing time being given to top performers and so on. I don't think any of them would get better just sitting on the bench. I also don't think you can just play a rookie week after week without working on fundamentals. I think that alternating playing time and prolonged periods to work on fundamentals without the pressure of getting ready to play a game would be the way to get the most of out of a prospect. You probably need a couple of good QB coaches too.

NFL teams don't seem to do much to develop and nurture young QB talent.

Good point. Given the argument that QBs learn best on the bench their first couple of years (and giving them proportionate playing time as you suggest), you might even increase the value of some of these players as they learn. You could have an NFL franchise that not only competes, but also runs a side business of grooming and trading QBs outside the conference, which could then be used to draft other positions once that franchise QB is in place.

And yeah, I'd have a legion of QB coaches. They're peanuts in terms of total cost. Rookie QBs would be begging to get drafted by Quarterback University.

[Rain Man]

Also, with my system you'd also create an artificial shortage of QBs on other teams, thereby driving up the value of the QBs you're drafting and training. It'd be like the Hunts cornering the silver market.

[patteeu]

LOL, I like your plan, Rain Man.

[patteeu]

It looks like these people who want to trade away 4 picks on just one QB prospect just don't want a franchise QB as much as you do. :)

[Bewbies]

I wouldn't use a 1 each year, but I would have no problem picking a Qb in each draft. Especially after I find the franchise guy. Become the team that gets high picks for backups.

[Micjones]

I meant to type SS, rather than FS... McGraw has to go and let the rook fight it out with Washington, Langford, and Lewis (if he can play SS). At ILB, Belcher has shown progression, but Williams and Greenwood haven't impressed me at all. The rook could come in and fight it out with Belcher and at the very least add depth at a position we're extremely thin at talent.

On another position of need, a big 'ol boy with tree stumps for legs needs to be drafted to compete with Powe at NT.

We're in agreement then.
Though I think I'd prefer a quality veteran for Safety depth.

[Rain Man]

It looks like these people who want to trade away 4 picks on just one QB prospect just don't want a franchise QB as much as you do. :)


Exactly. They're clutching at straws instead of using market forces to their advantage.