To those who want to draft Trent Richardson in Round 1...

[FloridaMan88]

I present to you the New York Giants.

Ranked 32nd in rushing offense. Their two primary RB's were drafted in the 7th round and 4th round.

Any dumbshit who advocates the Chiefs using the 12th overall pick in the draft on a RUNNING BACK is the definition of epic fail.

RBs are essentially as dispensable now as kickers and punters. The only teams that build their entire offenses around RBs in today's NFL are mediocre teams that have zero shot at winning in the playoffs... see the Chiefs. To win in today's NFL you need a franchise QB that is usually drafted in the first round.

However as we know there are certain dumbshits on this board who fail to pick up on this obvious point that the Giants proved tonight with their Super Bowl win. These dumbshits fail to see what it takes to win in the NFL, in 2012:

Milkman: Trent Richardson brings Earl Campell to mind when I watch him play, and if we are drafting at 14 or 15, if he's there, highly improbable, I'd be hard pressed to pass on him in the draft.

Link: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=8177546&postcount=270

Milkman: You can build a dynamic offense around a running back, you just need an offensive coach that has the vision to make it work
Link: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=8247010&postcount=519

Milkman: A guy that can put a team on his shoulders and carry them when needed. I'd be curious to know what kind of run/pass ratio the Cowboys of the 90s had. That's the team that I'd like to emulate.
Link: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=8247060&postcount=528

[buddha]

The Giants can afford to be sub par at running the ball because they have a franchise QB and three really good receivers.

If you don't have that, you had better start putting some pieces together. Yes, the Chiefs need a lot of pieces. The Gigantes are better than KC at almost every position.

I don't know if Richardson is a good or bad pick for KC, but I do know that they need help in my areas.

[Fumblerooski]

Sweet, all we have to do is draft a Manning, and we won't need a RB...

[BigMeatballDave]

Regardless, we still need a QB.

Btw, thoes saying they want TR are assuming we're not taking a QB.

[-King-]

I've made and erased 5 posts that I wanted to make. I don't know how to quite respond to this thread.

[Bump]

THE RAVENS WON THE SUPERBOWL WITH DEFENSE AND JAMAAL LEWIS

PROOF THAT FRANCHISE QUARTERBACKS DONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE

that's your logic.

[notorious]

We can have a pile of shit at RB and win the SB.


Point made.


Thank you, NFL, for making this game one dimensional.

[SAUTO]

Dumb.
They had one or the other of their rbs hurt all year.

They started played much better when they both got healthy. If you had paid attention you would have seen that they avgd over a hundred yards a game in the playoffs.

They showed the stat in the game, love how you cherry picked this
Posted via Mobile Device

[lewdog]

Well since most of us are assuming the gay Chiefs won't take a QB, then you take the best player on the board. I see no problem in drafting Richardson at #11 then if he is there.

[RealSNR]

And when I think about head coaches who don't give a shit about establishing a ground game as long as the QB is making crisp, timely throws when it matters and spreading the ball around to all possible options, I think of Jeff Fisher.

Go kill yourself.

[FloridaMan88]

Sweet, all we have to do is draft a Manning, and we won't need a RB...

Look at the most recent Super Bowl winners... all led by franchise QBs and average (at best) running games.

[Brock]

So who would you draft? Say Richardson is on the board when you are picking.

[Chief_For_Life58]

THE RAVENS WON THE SUPERBOWL WITH DEFENSE AND JAMAAL LEWIS

PROOF THAT FRANCHISE QUARTERBACKS DONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE

that's your logic.

Todays NFL you win superbowls with franchise first round talent qbs and multiple dynamic wrs.......and a very good o line...draft everything else after those positions

[Bump]

We need a Quarterback. I'm pretty sure that 99% of us realize this.

[Chief_For_Life58]

if trents there though, why not take him to fill that rb spot. we need help everywhere

[qabbaan]

Regardless of the angry post he is right, you should never spend a high pick on a running back.

[FloridaMan88]

So who would you draft? Say Richardson is on the board when you are picking.

Trading up to the #2 spot is the only option for the Chiefs.

There can be no other option.

This has to be the year to draft a QB in the first round.

[Brock]

Trading up to the #2 spot is the only option for the Chiefs.

There can be no other option.

This has to be the year to draft a QB in the first round.

that isn't going to happen, so let's rule that out right here and now. Same question.

[lewdog]

Trading up to the #2 spot is the only option for the Chiefs.

There can be no other option.

This has to be the year to draft a QB in the first round.

That won't happen, we are the Chiefs.

So since we won't take a QB, who do you take at #11?

[Chief_For_Life58]

that isn't going to happen, so let's rule that out right here and now. Same question.

trade back for multiple picks and we'll get you your qb dont worry...

[Bump]

Todays NFL you win superbowls with franchise first round talent qbs and multiple dynamic wrs.......and a very good o line...draft everything else after those positions

and defense.

But yes, I want a fucking quarterback more than anybody. But there are exceptions, there always have been. Elite quarterbacks have always been getting the most Superbowls. In the 2010's you had Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson being the shitty quarterbacks winning a Superbowl with guys like Brady, Peyton, Eli, Warner and Big Ben getting the rest. In the 90's it was no different, with Hall of famers getting the most rings like Young, Aikman, Elway, Favre and Sims getting the rings with like 1 shitty QB of the redskins getting one. The same with the 80's, it was Esiason, Sims, Montana getting rings with maybe 1 shitty QB getting a ring.

Point being, it's not "today's NFL" it's always been like that. You need a fucking great QB if you want to have a good chance of winning, but there are exceptions every once in a while. But all Superbowl teams have a great defense.

[Chief_For_Life58]

That won't happen, we are the Chiefs.

So since we won't take a QB, who do you take at #11?

knowone. hopefully t rich IS there and we can trade out of the pick to some legit team that thinks all they need is him for multiple picks

[Huffman83]

FWIW The Giants proved that you don't have to have a first round pick on your offensive line either.

[Brock]

trade back for multiple picks and we'll get you your qb dont worry...

Yeah. Sure.

[RealSNR]

FWIW The Giants proved that you don't have to have a first round pick on your offensive line either.Oh snap. Now you gone and done it!

[Huffman83]

Oh snap. Now you gone and done it!

SHIT I ACTUALLY POSTED THAT!?!?! ohhhh man it's on!

[notorious]

FWIW The Giants proved that you don't have to have a first round pick on your offensive line either.

I disagree. RT is a must in the first round this year for us to solidify our grip on .500.

[Huffman83]

I disagree. RT is a must in the first round this year for us to solidify our grip on .500.

How about a 2nd round pick?

[Chief_For_Life58]

Yeah. Sure.

what? you dont want case keenum or b weeden? theyd TOTALLY win the starting spot over cassel. cmon

[Bump]

The fact of the matter is, we need to trade with the Rams to get RG3 or sign Peyton Manning. That's our only hope for right now, next year we might get a chance on an elite QB, but honestly, we are gonna be good enough to win 8 games and get another 12 pick. So we will miss out again on an elite QB. We have to make a BIG move, it's our only hope but I don't think it's gonna happen.

[Okie_Apparition]

Pac Man, Albert Haynesworth, Vince Young...

[The Bad Guy]

Trading up to the #2 spot is the only option for the Chiefs.

There can be no other option.

This has to be the year to draft a QB in the first round.

You are so god damn predictable.

Offering no opinion of who to pick, just that we have to trade up.

The Rams are likely going to have a lot of suitors with better placement in the draft.

So who would you draft if you were at 12? This is assuming you know shit about college football, and I'm not betting that you're some knowledgeable guy.

[Huffman83]

The fact of the matter is, we need to trade with the Rams to get RG3 or sign Peyton Manning. That's our only hope for right now, next year we might get a chance on an elite QB, but honestly, we are gonna be good enough to win 8 games and get another 12 pick. So we will miss out again on an elite QB. We have to make a BIG move, it's our only hope but I don't think it's gonna happen.

I'd honestly be happy with KC just developing a QB, 1st round pick this year, Stanzi, etc.

I'm tired of other teams scraps.

[FloridaMan88]

that isn't going to happen, so let's rule that out right here and now. Same question.

Would you take a punter or kicker with the 12th overall pick in the draft?

In today's NFL taking a RB that high in the draft is the equivalent of drafting a kicker/punter.

Go back the past 10 years and virtually every single Super Bowl champion won with a franchise QB and an average, at best running game.

Last year Green Bay won the Super Bowl despite losing their #1 RB, Grant in the opening game of the season. They were able to plug in Starks, a 6th round draft pick.

The year before the Saints won a Super Bowl with their primary running option being Pierre Thomas, an undrafted free agent.

To answer your question... the Chiefs should draft ANY position over RB with the 12th overall pick.

You don't take RB's that high in today's NFL.

[Bump]

I'd honestly be happy with KC just developing a QB, 1st round pick this year, Stanzi, etc.

I'm tired of other teams scraps.

I'd be ok with developing Stanzi, if he's actually good enough. I'm pretty sure that Todd Haley sabotaged the Chiefs last year with Palko, so I'm not sure if Stanzi wasn't good enough to beat that piece of shit out or not.

[Munson]

Nobody is campaigning that we go and target Richardson in the draft as our #1 need.

Many of us realize that the only franchise QB's (Luck + RGIII) will be long gone by our pick, and Richardson will most likely be the best player available. Surely there will be a good G/C/RT at #11/12, but it doesn't make sense to pick one that early. Its a terrible value. Its like picking a 3-4 DE with the #3 overall pick like we did in '09.

[FloridaMan88]

Nobody is campaigning that we go and target Richardson in the draft as our #1 need.

Many of us realize that the only franchise QB's (Luck + RGIII) will be long gone by our pick, and Richardson will most likely be the best player available. Surely there will be a good G/C/RT at #11/12, but it doesn't make sense to pick one that early. Its a terrible value. Its like picking a 3-4 DE with the #3 overall pick like we did in '09.

A terrible value is taking a RB with the 12th overall pick in the draft.

[Chief_For_Life58]

A terrible value is taking a RB with the 12th overall pick in the draft.

so who do we take? ryan tannehill at 11/12?

[Huffman83]

Would Tannehill be worth the pick?

[Bump]

7 out of the last 13 Superbowl winners have had 1st round running backs on their roster. Your statement is irrelevant.

[Bump]

But yes, 90% of Superbowl winners have had an elite QB. Most Hall of Fame, the rest borderline HOF. Nobody is doubting that we need an elite QB, but what are the chances that Tannehill is gonna turn out to be an elite QB? I'm gonna say it's slim and that's the best QB that's gonna be available at our pick. Why waste that pick when we could take someone else who could help us? But Pioli must address the QB situation and make a huge move and he better do it soon.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Would you take a punter or kicker with the 12th overall pick in the draft?

In today's NFL taking a RB that high in the draft is the equivalent of drafting a kicker/punter.

Go back the past 10 years and virtually every single Super Bowl champion won with a franchise QB and an average, at best running game.

Last year Green Bay won the Super Bowl despite losing their #1 RB, Grant in the opening game of the season. They were able to plug in Starks, a 6th round draft pick.

The year before the Saints won a Super Bowl with their primary running option being Pierre Thomas, an undrafted free agent.

To answer your question... the Chiefs should draft ANY position over RB with the 12th overall pick.

You don't take RB's that high in today's NFL.

So you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You're just talking out of your ass. Not a shock. Not at all.

[Bump]

I'd take Trent Richardson with our pick without blinking. But I'd rather trade to get RG3.

[tk13]

I don't think you can ever really go wrong drafting anyone who is going to be a dynamic playmaker.

[Munson]

I'd trade the farm to get RGIII.

[BossChief]

Its as simple as this.

Teams that always draft the best player available end up having a team full of the best players.

Teams that draft for need end up with a team of average players.

Jamaal Charles will only be able to carry the ball 150-200 times AT MOST coming off the ACL if we aren't trying to have him re-injure that knee. Dexter can probably handle around 100 carries. With Thomas Jones being done and Jackie Battle not really being a guy that's a priority to re-sign, we have a hole at RB that needs to be able to play right away and take the pressure off Orton.

Last year, we ran the ball 500 times.

That leaves around 200-250 carries that need to be filled.

Trent Richardson isn't just any old back that's in every draft, either. He is a guy that you see in every 7-10 drafts. He is the protypical "complete package" at the position and has truly elite tools.

The best case/worst case scenario is really nice if we take him, too.

Best case scenario is that we have a 3 back rotation of Richardson/Charles/McCluster and that keeps all three from getting worn out and if somebody gets hurt, our running game is gonna stay elite for the next 7 years.

Worst case scenario is that Jamaal plays tentatively and that causes him to re-injure the knee and his career isn't ever the same and Trent gives us an elite option that can be a workhorse, 3 down threat.

Lets face it, even if we draft a quarterback next year, its gonna take a couple years until he is ready for us to compete with him. What better situation to come into than a team with an elite running attack and a top 10 defense?

If Trent Richardson is on the board, we should probably take him unless a viable trade down partner is available...which is what I would prefer.

Trent Richardson is probably the only player worth taking if we dont trade up or down.

[Chief_For_Life58]

I'd trade the farm to get RGIII.

id pull a ricky williams for him

[Okie_Apparition]

Did III even start 2 years, but is worth 3 1sts
yet taking a RB at 12 is crazy talk

[Huffman83]

Its as simple as this.

Teams that always draft the best player available end up having a team full of the best players.

Teams that draft for need end up with a team of average players.

Jamaal Charles will only be able to carry the ball 150-200 times AT MOST coming off the ACL if we aren't trying to have him re-injure that knee. Dexter can probably handle around 100 carries. With Thomas Jones being done and Jackie Battle not really being a guy that's a priority to re-sign, we have a hole at RB that needs to be able to play right away and take the pressure off Orton.

Last year, we ran the ball 500 times.

That leaves around 200-250 carries that need to be filled.

Trent Richardson isn't just any old back that's in every draft, either. He is a guy that you see in every 7-10 drafts. He is the protypical "complete package" at the position and has truly elite tools.

The best case/worst case scenario is really nice if we take him, too.

Best case scenario is that we have a 3 back rotation of Richardson/Charles/McCluster and that keeps all three from getting worn out and if somebody gets hurt, our running game is gonna stay elite for the next 7 years.

Worst case scenario is that Jamaal plays tentatively and that causes him to re-injure the knee and his career isn't ever the same and Trent gives us an elite option that can be a workhorse, 3 down threat.

Lets face it, even if we draft a quarterback next year, its gonna take a couple years until he is ready for us to compete with him. What better situation to come into than a team with an elite running attack and a top 10 defense?

If Trent Richardson is on the board, we should probably take him unless a viable trade down partner is available...which is what I would prefer.

Trent Richardson is probably the only player worth taking if we dont trade up or down.

I agree. We don't know if Charles will be able to come back and be the same player. If Cassel is going to be around (sigh) KC will need a billy badass rb around.

[WhiteWhale]

In today's NFL taking a RB that high in the draft is the equivalent of drafting a kicker/punter.


No, it's not.

You never had credibility, but what little you did have was just pissed away.

[morphius]

I'd be happier with him then drafting an OL. We spent years trying the first round OL and it didn't really get us anything, give me talent and talented depth.

I think we all know we need a QB, and we do need some OL starters. The QB's might be out of reach in this draft, and there are always OL quality throughout the draft and available in FA. Not that this team signs FA's.

[KCrockaholic]

If Richardson wasn't basically the next Adrian Peterson I wouldn't want him. But he's not just a great runningback. He's an ELITE runningback. Worth making the pick in our situation if we decide to not trade up. I'd also be ok with Reiff or Martin.

[Bowser]

I hope we take Richardson just to see 50/50's head pop like a zit.

[Bowser]

We're in no man's land at 11/12. There won't be anyone there worthy of that pick, and everyone we would want is going to be gone. There are wose option B's than Trent Richardson.

[Chief_For_Life58]

We're in no man's land at 11/12. There won't be anyone there worthy of that pick, and everyone we would want is going to be gone. There are wose option B's than Trent Richardson.

if he even falls to our pick...take him....if not...go bold...fuck it....take tannehill

[RealSNR]

I just hope for humanity's sake that 50/50's job doesn't involve him making any kind of group decisions

Worker: 50/50, how would you solve this problem?
50/50: I can tell you that the answer does NOT involve eating a live porcupine!

[WhiteWhale]

If Richardson wasn't basically the next Adrian Peterson I wouldn't want him. But he's not just a great runningback. He's an ELITE runningback. Worth making the pick in our situation if we decide to not trade up. I'd also be ok with Reiff or Martin.

McFadden got this kind of hype, and in the end he's just the poor man's version of a RB we drafted in the 3rd round.

[aturnis]

Regardless, we still need a QB.

Btw, thoes saying they want TR are assuming we're not taking a QB.

Where the he'll would we get one?

[KCrockaholic]

McFadden got this kind of hype, and in the end he's just the poor man's version of a RB we drafted in the 3rd round.

McFadden had chicken legs coming out, and he still does have thin legs for a runningback. But if McFadden hype is your only beef against Richardson it's not a very good one. McFadden is in the top 5 in terms of talent at the HB position today.

[aturnis]

Look at the most recent Super Bowl winners... all led by franchise QBs and average (at best) running games.

Everyone on this entire fucking board, even the Cassel apologists know we NEED a franchise QB phuqtard. Just where do you suggest we find one?

[aturnis]

Trading up to the #2 spot is the only option for the Chiefs.

There can be no other option.

This has to be the year to draft a QB in the first round.

You have a better chance of winning the Superbowl with a post 3rd round QB than you do with a black QB. It's true, check the stats.

[Huffman83]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/thats-racist.gifYou have a better chance of winning the Superbowl with a post 3rd round QB than you do with a black QB. It's true, check the stats.

[BryanBusby]

Jesus this is fucking retarded.

"Hurr fuck Pioli for copying a method to win the Super Bowl so how about we copy this method"

[KCrockaholic]

Jesus 50/50 is ****ing retarded.

"Hurr **** Pioli for copying a method to win the Super Bowl so how about we copy this method"

fyp

[Phobia]

I'm all about making wise decisions with our first rounder. But what's to say Stanzi isn't our Tom Terrific? I'm not saying he is. Certainly, I haven't seen any more than any of you have this year. But if Romeo and Pioli think Stanzi is the man then we aren't getting that 1st round QB and that won't be the world.

[-King-]

Would you take a punter or kicker with the 12th overall pick in the draft?

In today's NFL taking a RB that high in the draft is the equivalent of drafting a kicker/punter.

Go back the past 10 years and virtually every single Super Bowl champion won with a franchise QB and an average, at best running game.

Last year Green Bay won the Super Bowl despite losing their #1 RB, Grant in the opening game of the season. They were able to plug in Starks, a 6th round draft pick.

The year before the Saints won a Super Bowl with their primary running option being Pierre Thomas, an undrafted free agent.

To answer your question... the Chiefs should draft ANY position over RB with the 12th overall pick.

You don't take RB's that high in today's NFL.

Do you even attempt to put logic into your thoughts before you post or what exactly goes on in your head?

[KCrockaholic]

I'm surprised some of you guys give this guy any attention. He's either 1. Trolling. Or 2. Retarded.

It's the same reason I don't talk to Eric007.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I'm surprised some of you guys give this guy any attention. He's either 1. Trolling. Or 2. Retarded.

It's the same reason I don't talk to Eric007.

Yeah. I figured out sometime last week this guy is a genuine tard. Usually they're so happy...

[FloridaMan88]

Do you even attempt to put logic into your thoughts before you post or what exactly goes on in your head?

A typical non-answer from a true fan too dumb to comprehend the current trends in today's NFL.

Explain why the Chiefs should draft a RB with the 12th overall draft pick when every league trend suggests you can win a Super Bowl with a complimentary running game, led by RB's drafted in lower rounds of the draft.

You can find quality RB's after the first round of the draft... see the final 4 teams in the NFL playoffs this year, Baltimore's leading rusher, Ray Rice was drafted in the second round, SF's leading rusher, Frank Gore was a 3rd round draft pick, NY Giants' leading rusher, Bradshaw was a 7th round draft pick, and the Patriots leading rusher, Green-Ellis was undrafted.

Not a single first round draft pick in that group.

Based on those blatant facts presented to you... explain why you think I am wrong to suggest that it isn't worth drafting a RB with the 12th overall pick in the draft.

[FloridaMan88]

so who do we take? ryan tannehill at 11/12?

Settling for an inferior QB like Tannehill is not an option.

You are clearly too confined by the constraints of mediocrity to even consider the possibility of the Chiefs trading up to the Rams pick to draft RGIII.

[The Bad Guy]

Would you take a punter or kicker with the 12th overall pick in the draft?

In today's NFL taking a RB that high in the draft is the equivalent of drafting a kicker/punter.

Go back the past 10 years and virtually every single Super Bowl champion won with a franchise QB and an average, at best running game.

Last year Green Bay won the Super Bowl despite losing their #1 RB, Grant in the opening game of the season. They were able to plug in Starks, a 6th round draft pick.

The year before the Saints won a Super Bowl with their primary running option being Pierre Thomas, an undrafted free agent.

To answer your question... the Chiefs should draft ANY position over RB with the 12th overall pick.

You don't take RB's that high in today's NFL.

Still a no-answer from the dumbest fucker on the planet.

Put something on the site jackass. Put a player down. You're constant spin rationalizations leave you the opportunity when a trade wtih STL doesn't happen, that you can cry about it forever.

[Otter]

Northern Maine got 2 feet of snow last night. Global warming my ass!!!

This place is getting stupider by the week.

[tredadda]

The OP is absolutely correct that we don't need Richardson. We need a franchise QB. Eli proves that there is no cost too high for a franchise QB. Sadly though we will not trade up for one because of the "cost", so our options are either an Offensive Lineman (and no Chiefs mock would be complete without us getting one of those in the first), or Richardson if he is there. At least he is a playmaker. If only the front office knew how badly we needed a franchise QB we wouldn't even be having this discussion, but since it is the Chiefs and they break out in hives at the thought of one we have to do all we can to provide our dud under center with as much help as possible.

[HMc]

McFadden had chicken legs coming out, and he still does have thin legs for a runningback. But if McFadden hype is your only beef against Richardson it's not a very good one. McFadden is in the top 5 in terms of talent at the HB position today.

Would you give up the #12 for McFadden today? I sure as shit wouldn't.

[BoneKrusher]

Today's NFL is dominated by Franchise QB's, i say NO to Richardson.

i dont think anyone wants to watch three runs and a cloud of dust then punt.

[chiefzilla1501]

The OP is absolutely correct that we don't need Richardson. We need a franchise QB. Eli proves that there is no cost too high for a franchise QB. Sadly though we will not trade up for one because of the "cost", so our options are either an Offensive Lineman (and no Chiefs mock would be complete without us getting one of those in the first), or Richardson if he is there. At least he is a playmaker. If only the front office knew how badly we needed a franchise QB we wouldn't even be having this discussion, but since it is the Chiefs and they break out in hives at the thought of one we have to do all we can to provide our dud under center with as much help as possible.

You have to have things to trade. That's the issue nobody can seem to register.

Our free agents are going to be ungodly expensive and have 5 years left in them. If I'm the Rams, a team building for 2-3 years from now, I'd rather get the cheaper draft pick who can give me 10 years.

And our future first rounders? If I had to project... if the Chiefs trade for RGIII they may become something like a #25 pick in 2013. If the Browns trade for RGIII, they're probably only good enough for a #15 pick.

There isn't a whole lot we can do. If Eric Berry was 100%, maybe. But based on who we have? We don't have any ammo even if we give the Rams the moon.

[chiefzilla1501]

Today's NFL is dominated by Franchise QB's, i say NO to Richardson.

i dont think anyone wants to watch three runs and a cloud of dust then punt.

There's nothing that says you can't have both a franchise QB and a franchise RB.

I'd much rather draft Trent Richardson and be aggressive in 2013 about getting a QB. We'll have a lot more options and we can actually afford to trade for one of them.

[BoneKrusher]

There's nothing that says you can't have both a franchise QB and a franchise RB.

I'd much rather draft Trent Richardson and be aggressive in 2013 about getting a QB. We'll have a lot more options and we can actually afford to trade for one of them.

well yeah it would be nice to have both but get the QB first and build around him.

[chiefzilla1501]

well yeah it would be nice to have both but get the QB first and build around him.

I just don't think there's any way in hell we get Luck or RGIII. And it won't be from a lack of trying.

[BoneKrusher]

I just don't think there's any way in hell we get Luck or RGIII. And it won't be from a lack of trying.

with the talent level the chiefs have built, Pioli needs to be working the phones and get a trade in place instead of wasting his efforts on MC.

[crazycoffey]

Regardless of the angry post he is right, you should never spend a high pick on a running back.

hi Mecca....

[chiefzilla1501]

with the talent level the chiefs have built, Pioli needs to be working the phones and get a trade in place instead of wasting his efforts on MC.

We don't have trade bait. Cleveland has a far better pick today and probably in 2013 too. And a team like the Rams isn't going to want to pay for a 27-year old vet who's going to be twice as expensive as the guy they could pick at #2.

It's just a pipe dream. Sadly, after Luck or RGIII, we're out of options. I don't think Flynn or Tannehill are franchise QBs. I'd rather wait until 2013.

[BoneKrusher]

We don't have trade bait. Cleveland has a far better pick today and probably in 2013 too. And a team like the Rams isn't going to want to pay for a 27-year old vet who's going to be twice as expensive as the guy they could pick at #2.

It's just a pipe dream. Sadly, after Luck or RGIII, we're out of options. I don't think Flynn or Tannehill are franchise QBs. I'd rather wait until 2013.

trade future draft picks

[crazycoffey]

trade future draft picks

How does a team build around a QB without draft picks?

[BoneKrusher]

How does a team build around a QB without draft picks?

other than QB, C, RT and NT this team is built pretty well.

[crazycoffey]

other than QB, C, RT and NT this team is built pretty well.

for the next year or two. but you cant take too many future picks out of our hands and expect no effects on the team's shelf life.

[noa]

Settling for an inferior QB like Tannehill is not an option.

You are clearly too confined by the constraints of mediocrity to even consider the possibility of the Chiefs trading up to the Rams pick to draft RGIII.

Prepare to be disappointed. This Chiefs are not trading up for RGIII as much as we want it to happen.
Posted via Mobile Device

[BoneKrusher]

for the next year or two. but you cant take too many future picks out of our hands and expect no effects on the team's shelf life.

i know but there's always gonna be a price to pay.

plus, if you have a Franchise QB the team will attract better FA's.

[htismaqe]

There's nothing that says you can't have both a franchise QB and a franchise RB.

I'd much rather draft Trent Richardson and be aggressive in 2013 about getting a QB. We'll have a lot more options and we can actually afford to trade for one of them.

This the Chiefs we're talking about. Trent Richardson is the antithesis of aggressive for a team like this.

Richardson actually reduces the number of options.

[crazycoffey]

i know but there's always gonna be a price to pay.

plus, if you have a Franchise QB the team will attract better FA's.

There are just too many variables. injuries, other players performance growth/decline, rookie QB transition to pro speed and game, let alone transitition of that QB to "elite" status and the time for that to happen.

I want to win as bad as anyone, I've lost confidence in MC and want improved QB play also. But "trade up at any costs" and we "can't win with a retread QB" are two concepts I'm just not sold on. Either way could be successful, either way could be disasterous. Whats the best decision?

We won't trade the farm, we should make a play for retaining Orton or another retread. We'll probably draft a rookie in 2nd or 3rd range. And hopefully we trade MC on draft day for an order of tacos, but I'm not holding my breath.

[tredadda]

I just don't think there's any way in hell we get Luck or RGIII. And it won't be from a lack of trying.

I agree and disagree. I agree that there is no way we get Luck or RGIII. I disagree that it wont be from a lack of trying. I highly doubt we even make a halfhearted attempt.

[BoneKrusher]

There are just too many variables. injuries, other players performance growth/decline, rookie QB transition to pro speed and game, let alone transitition of that QB to "elite" status and the time for that to happen.

I want to win as bad as anyone, I've lost confidence in MC and want improved QB play also. But "trade up at any costs" and we "can't win with a retread QB" are two concepts I'm just not sold on. Either way could be successful, either way could be disasterous. Whats the best decision?

We won't trade the farm, we should make a play for retaining Orton or another retread. We'll probably draft a rookie in 2nd or 3rd range. And hopefully we trade MC on draft day for an order of tacos, but I'm not holding my breath.


the price to move up to second this year is gonna be really costly so
if i were Pioli i'd cut Cassel, resign Orton and go with Stanzi as backup for this season and we're a better team than last year with an easier schedule in a weak division.

[tredadda]

You have to have things to trade. That's the issue nobody can seem to register.

Our free agents are going to be ungodly expensive and have 5 years left in them. If I'm the Rams, a team building for 2-3 years from now, I'd rather get the cheaper draft pick who can give me 10 years.

And our future first rounders? If I had to project... if the Chiefs trade for RGIII they may become something like a #25 pick in 2013. If the Browns trade for RGIII, they're probably only good enough for a #15 pick.

There isn't a whole lot we can do. If Eric Berry was 100%, maybe. But based on who we have? We don't have any ammo even if we give the Rams the moon.

Then what do you suggest? Do we

a. Draft Tannehill at our pick?
b. Draft a play maker like Richardson who will actually help keep the ball out of our crappy QB's hands.
c. Draft a RT to give our crappy QB more protection till he makes yet another poor decision.

[htismaqe]

Then what do you suggest? Do we

a. Draft Tannehill at our pick?
b. Draft a play maker like Richardson who will actually help keep the ball out of our crappy QB's hands.
c. Draft a RT to give our crappy QB more protection till he makes yet another poor decision.

C at least allows for him to make poor decisions and continue to work his way out of a job.

If you keep the ball out of his hands, this regime will continue to insist that he's "good enough".

Trent Richardson is the LAST player I want in the 1st.

[crazycoffey]

I agree and disagree. I agree that there is no way we get Luck or RGIII. I disagree that it wont be from a lack of trying. I highly doubt we even make a halfhearted attempt.

nonsense, the attempt will be at least just about respectable, a trade not too expensive - in case the Rams take it - but not good enough to actually get it.

[crazycoffey]

trade future draft picks

the price to move up to second this year is gonna be really costly so
if i were Pioli i'd cut Cassel, resign Orton and go with Stanzi as backup for this season and we're a better team than last year with an easier schedule in a weak division.

did you just flip flop? :Poke:

[tredadda]

nonsense, the attempt will be at least just about respectable, a trade not too expensive - in case the Rams take it - but not good enough to actually get it.

That sounds like something we would do. Then they can get their RT, draft a QB in Round 4 or something, call him competition for Cassel, watch Cassel win out and tell all us fans that they tried as they ask the gullible "true fans" to renew their season tickets.

[Deberg_1990]

C at least allows for him to make poor decisions and continue to work his way out of a job.

If you keep the ball out of his hands, this regime will continue to insist that he's "good enough".

Trent Richardson is the LAST player I want in the 1st.

So ultimately, you want the organization to tank, putting us into a top 3 pick, forcing our hand to pick a QB.

[BoneKrusher]

did you just flip flop? :Poke:

no, it was a reply to the persons post about trading up in this years draft being too expensive.

[suds79]

C at least allows for him to make poor decisions and continue to work his way out of a job.

If you keep the ball out of his hands, this regime will continue to insist that he's "good enough".

Trent Richardson is the LAST player I want in the 1st.

I understand what you're arguing but look at it this way.

You don't want Richardson because it'll help mask how bad Cassel is. You're not saying you don't think Richardson isn't the BPA. You're simply concerned with our #1 problem which is the QB. I get the argument.

My point is that if that's your stance, then we're F-ed no matter what because if management can't see that Matt stinks, we might as well check out until they're gone.

I don't know what Scott thinks. Maybe he really does think Matt can play. If so? See paragraph above. Or maybe he thought Matt could play but has sense realized he's not as good as he once thought. It's possible. Lets see what they try to go going forward to replacing him. We don't know.

But I can't get with this team not taking the BPAs because of Matt. To me they're separate issues. Why can't this team try to take the BPAs and still look to replace Matt?

[htismaqe]

So ultimately, you want the organization to tank, putting us into a top 3 pick, forcing our hand to pick a QB.

No, I want Matt Cassel to tank, forcing our hand to pick a QB. I don't care what the record is or how high the pick is.

It's obvious this franchise isn't ready to give up on Cassel, so we need to do everything we can to make sure they change their minds.

[htismaqe]

I understand what you're arguing but look at it this way.

You don't want Richardson because it'll help mask how bad Cassel is. You're not saying you don't think Richardson isn't the BPA. You're simply concerned with our #1 problem which is the QB. I get the argument.

My point is that if that's your stance, then we're F-ed no matter what because if management can't see that Matt stinks, we might as well check out until they're gone.

I don't know what Scott thinks. Maybe he really does think Matt can play. If so? See paragraph above. Or maybe he thought Matt could play but has sense realized he's not as good as he once thought. We don't know.

But I can't get with this team not taking the BPAs because of Matt. To me they're separate issues. Why can't this team try to take the BPAs and still look to replace Matt?

Because an elite RB is the one BPA that COMPLETELY alters what you can do with how you call your offense.

It's not just about Cassel, it's about all the guys like him. Teams that have Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones Drew, and the like BUILD around those guys. They make the QB a secondary concern.

We've done that already, for nearly 20 years. I'm not ready to go through another decade of it.

[suds79]

Because an elite RB is the one BPA that COMPLETELY alters what you can do with how you call your offense.

It's not just about Cassel, it's about all the guys like him. Teams that have Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones Drew, and the like BUILD around those guys. They make the QB a secondary concern.

We've done that already, for nearly 20 years. I'm not ready to go through another decade of it.

I get that. If that's the approach... Draft Richardson and focus the offense around him. Then yeah I don't want anything to do with him either.

I would hope they'd draft him, use him with Jamaal and still realize this is a QB league who the offense should be featured around. The RB is merely a safety blanket to the QB. See the Saints in how they're focused around Drew Brees but didn't hesitate to draft their 1st round RB in Ingram.

[tredadda]

No, I want Matt Cassel to tank, forcing our hand to pick a QB. I don't care what the record is or how high the pick is.

It's obvious this franchise isn't ready to give up on Cassel, so we need to do everything we can to make sure they change their minds.

Billboards, not going to games, ads in the KC Star are good ways to go to get the message out.

[BigCatDaddy]

This is fucking stupid. The Ravens and Niners rode the backs of their stud RB's and defenses this year. They were both fluke plays away from being in the SB themselves. Would we prefer a Franchise QB, sure, but until you get one you have to figure out a way to win with what you can get.

[tredadda]

This is ****ing stupid. The Ravens and Niners rode the backs of their stud RB's and defenses this year. They were both fluke plays away from being in the SB themselves. Would we prefer a Franchise QB, sure, but until you get one you have to figure out a way to win with what you can get.

And both of their QBs were first round picks. In the case of Alex Smith, he was the #1 pick overall. They both took a chance on a QB in the first, something this team refuses to do. As a matter of fact of the four final teams there were 3 first round QBs in it, and of those 2 were the #1 overall pick.

[BigCatDaddy]

And both of their QBs were first round picks. In the case of Alex Smith, he was the #1 pick overall. They both took a chance on a QB in the first, something this team refuses to do. As a matter of fact of the four final teams there were 3 first round QBs in it, and of those 2 were the #1 overall pick.

Everybody here wants to get the Franchise QB in the 1st, but it's not happening this year. So you have to take what your strengths are which is the running game and defense and go with that. If you can't get the QB then you go with BPA at a need postion which is Richarson. It's really pretty simple.

[htismaqe]

I get that. If that's the approach... Draft Richardson and focus the offense around him. Then yeah I don't want anything to do with him either.

I would hope they'd draft him, use him with Jamaal and still realize this is a QB league who the offense should be featured around. The RB is merely a safety blanket to the QB. See the Saints in how they're focused around Drew Brees but didn't hesitate to draft their 1st round RB in Ingram.

It's not just about approach, it's about timing.

The Saints took Ingram AFTER they had an established Brees. Look at the Vikings as a perfect example of what I'm talking about - by the time Ponder really has a chance to develop, AP might be done and the Vikings would have pretty much nothing to show for it.

[htismaqe]

Everybody here wants to get the Franchise QB in the 1st, but it's not happening this year. So you have to take what your strengths are which is the running game and defense and go with that. If you can't get the QB then you go with BPA at a need postion which is Richarson. It's really pretty simple.

It is really simple. And super easy.

Go 8-8.

Sell ticket.

Rinse, repeat.

[BigCatDaddy]

It is really simple. And super easy.

Go 8-8.

Sell ticket.

Rinse, repeat.

I want the QB as much as the next guy, but we aren't trading up for RGIII. That's the best option, but I'm just being realistic in that we are picking where we are and there isn't a QB there to take.

[htismaqe]

I want the QB as much as the next guy, but we aren't trading up for RGIII. That's the best option, but I'm just being realistic in that we are picking where we are and there isn't a QB there to take.

I'm being realistic too. Take a RT or LB, a NT or a TE. Just don't take an elite RB. Nothing could be more counterproductive.

[KCrockaholic]

Would you give up the #12 for McFadden today? I sure as shit wouldn't.

No, because he has injury concerns.

The whole comparison is ridiculous. If Richardson has any sort of modern day comparison it's Adrian Peterson. And despite his injury and fumble history he's looked at as one of the best. But Richardson doesn't have a fumble problem, and he's been pretty healthy during his career so far.

[BigCatDaddy]

I'm being realistic too. Take a RT or LB, a NT or a TE. Just don't take an elite RB. Nothing could be more counterproductive.

:facepalm:

[suds79]

It's not just about approach, it's about timing.

The Saints took Ingram AFTER they had an established Brees. Look at the Vikings as a perfect example of what I'm talking about - by the time Ponder really has a chance to develop, AP might be done and the Vikings would have pretty much nothing to show for it.

I'm all for taking care of the QB position now. Establishing that guy now. lets do it. Where is he? (looking around). Lets get that guy. (crickets) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of options right now. Try to trade for RG3? Sure make it happen. But probably unlikely unfortunately.

Until then, I can't get with not trying to make the team as good as possible in the meantime. Doesn't or shouldn't change the fact that we need a new QB. We all get that. They're completely unrelated.

- On the side note, I'd say AP worked out pretty well for the Vikings. They went to the NFC championship game where they were one Brett Favre braindead moment away from a SB. Now before you come back and say "they got there because they had a QB." I'm not going to argue with you. Yes we need a QB. But AP was also a big part of that team's run.

[htismaqe]

No, because he has injury concerns.

The whole comparison is ridiculous. If Richardson has any sort of modern day comparison it's Adrian Peterson. And despite his injury and fumble history he's looked at as one of the best. But Richardson doesn't have a fumble problem, and he's been pretty healthy during his career so far.

What, of significance, has Adrian Peterson won?

[htismaqe]

:facepalm:

ROFL

[Brock]

I'm being realistic too. Take a RT or LB, a NT or a TE. Just don't take an elite RB. Nothing could be more counterproductive.

LMAO

[htismaqe]

I'm all for taking care of the QB position now. Establishing that guy now. lets do it. Where is he? (looking around). Lets get that guy. (crickets) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of options right now. Try to trade for RG3? Sure make it happen. But probably unlikely unfortunately.

My bias against a Richardson pick has NOTHING to do with taking care of the QB position now. I already know we're stuck with Cassel.

But as it stands, we're stuck with Cassel for maybe 2 more years.

Taking Richardson all but guarantess that we're stuck with him, or someone like him, for the better part of the NEXT DECADE.

On the side note, I'd say AP worked out pretty well for the Vikings. They went to the NFC championship game where they were one Brett Favre braindead moment away from a SB. Now before you come back and say "they got there because they had a QB." I'm not going to argue with you. Yes we need a QB. But AP was also a big part of that team's run.

Yep, and we were 1 Joe Montana head injury away from a Super Bowl. The key here is what each team did NEXT.

The Vikings looked to replace Favre with DONOVAN MCNABB. We replaced Montana with STEVE BONO.

Do you want to replace Cassel with the next Andrew Luck, via the draft, or be looking 3 years from now at what Carson Palmer can do for us?

[Bewbies]

I'm being realistic too. Take a RT or LB, a NT or a TE. Just don't take an elite RB. Nothing could be more counterproductive.

You'd sound better if you said anything but QB is counter productive.

[htismaqe]

LMAO

Laugh all you want.

Past history says I'm right.

The history of this team alone says I'm right.

[L.A. Chieffan]

Cassel and trent. Sign me up.

[suds79]

Do you want to replace Cassel with the next Andrew Luck, via the draft, or be looking 3 years from now at what Carson Palmer can do for us?

Sounds like you're advocating tanking. Honestly, we missed the boat on that one. I'm not completely against it but we should have tanked this year to get "the best QB prospect since John Elway" in Luck. Or honestly the year before to get the "real" best QB prospect since John in Cam.

Even if we were to draft just some say RT in the 1st, this team has too much talent to get the #1-3 pick int he draft next year. Prepare to be disappointed.

Even then, I don't think Barkley is near the same level to either one of the two guys above. I guess in the end, sucks to be us.

[htismaqe]

Cassel and trent. Sign me up.

This post right here says it all.

[htismaqe]

Sounds like you're advocating tanking. Honestly, we missed the boat on that one. I'm not completely against it but we should have tanked this year to get "the best QB prospect since John Elway" in Luck. Or honestly the year before to get the "real" best QB prospect since John in Cam.

Even if we were to draft just some say RT in the 1st, this team has too much talent to get the #1-3 pick int he draft next year. Prepare to be disappointed.

Even then, I don't think Barkley is near the same level to either one of the two guys above. I guess in the end, sucks to be us.

No, I'm not advocating tanking at all.

I'm just not advocating taking a player that

1) dictates offensive philosophy
2) dictates it in a way that is the OPPOSITE of what we should be doing.

[BigMeatballDave]

Would you take a punter or kicker with the 12th overall pick in the draft?

In today's NFL taking a RB that high in the draft is the equivalent of drafting a kicker/punter.

Go back the past 10 years and virtually every single Super Bowl champion won with a franchise QB and an average, at best running game.

Last year Green Bay won the Super Bowl despite losing their #1 RB, Grant in the opening game of the season. They were able to plug in Starks, a 6th round draft pick.

The year before the Saints won a Super Bowl with their primary running option being Pierre Thomas, an undrafted free agent.

To answer your question... the Chiefs should draft ANY position over RB with the 12th overall pick.

You don't take RB's that high in today's NFL.

LMAO What a moron

[Brock]

No, I'm not advocating tanking at all.

I'm just not advocating taking a player that

1) dictates offensive philosophy
2) dictates it in a way that is the OPPOSITE of what we should be doing.

After spending first round picks and free agent dollars on WRs, drafting a RB doesn't dictate offensive philosophy.

[htismaqe]

After spending first round picks and free agent dollars on WRs, drafting a RB doesn't dictate offensive philosophy.

Yes, it most certainly does.

WRs simply CANNOT dictate offensive philosophy if you have nobody to get them the ball.

That's how Baldwin ends up hardly seeing the field while Dexter McCluster is a prominent piece of the offense in most games.

[philfree]

No, I'm not advocating tanking at all.

I'm just not advocating taking a player that

1) dictates offensive philosophy
2) dictates it in a way that is the OPPOSITE of what we should be doing.

Drafting Richardson isn't going to change our offensive philosophy. We're going to run the ball wether we draft him in the 1st, draft someone else later in the draft, sign an UDFA or sign a FA. If we traded up for RG3 we'd still be a running team in 2012.

[Brock]

Yes, it most certainly does.

WRs simply CANNOT dictate offensive philosophy if you have nobody to get them the ball.

That's how Baldwin ends up hardly seeing the field while Dexter McCluster is a prominent piece of the offense in most games.

That's not having a QB, not drafting RB.

[Chiefnj2]

Htis doesn't want to take Richardson because he thinks Richardson gives the Chiefs the best chance to win some games. Odd.

[whoman69]

If you are one of the 25 teams that don't have an elite QB, what are you going to do? Should we just throw up the surrender flag? If you don't have the guy, you need a different strategy to win. Defense and running keep those elite QBs on the sideline and keeps them from developing momentum throughout the game.

[Fritz88]

Somehow, 50/50 is the voice of reason in here.

Amazing.

[htismaqe]

Drafting Richardson isn't going to change our offensive philosophy. We're going to run the ball wether we draft him in the 1st, draft someone else later in the draft, sign an UDFA or sign a FA. If we traded up for RG3 we'd still be a running team in 2012.

Again, it's NOT about 2012.

[RealSNR]

Somehow, 50/50 is the voice of reason in here.

Amazing.He posts obvious information about the importance of the QB position in the NFL and how the Chiefs desperately need a guy like that and then turns into the "voice of reason?"

Uhhhh.... d'okay

[htismaqe]

Htis doesn't want to take Richardson because he thinks Richardson gives the Chiefs the best chance to win some games. Odd.

Funny how simplistic you can be when you're being facetious.

[htismaqe]

If you are one of the 25 teams that don't have an elite QB, what are you going to do? Should we just throw up the surrender flag? If you don't have the guy, you need a different strategy to win. Defense and running keep those elite QBs on the sideline and keeps them from developing momentum throughout the game.

And ultimately end in defeat.

[Fritz88]

JC + Jackie Battle + a mid rounder will more than suffice for our running game.

[Chiefnj2]

Funny how simplistic you can be when you're being facetious.

Isn't that your reasoning? You think the offense will score points and get a few more wins and that will lead to no QB change.

[philfree]

Again, it's NOT about 2012.

It won't change in the next couple of years:shrug:

So if we daft O line and improve our O line isn't that going to improve our running game and get us some wins? If we improve any part of our team couldn't that lead to wins and prolong the career of Matt Cassel?

Maybe we should bench our best players next season so Cassel can be further exposed as a suck QB.

[suds79]

JC + Jackie Battle + a mid rounder will more than suffice for our running game.

But that's not really the debate.

It's:

A) BPA in Trent Richardson. (top 5 or so talent)
vs
B) Slightly reaching and taking the best say RT available (maybe top 15 talent)

Furthermore, we can't assume JC will be the same guy he was before.

[Fritz88]

But that's not really the debate.

It's:

A) BPA in Trent Richardson. (top 5 or so talent)
vs
B) Slightly reaching and taking the best say RT available (maybe top 15 talent)

Furthermore, we can't assume JC will be the same guy he was before.

C) Going all in for Luck.

D) Trading down (doesn't matter if we get robbed) and loading more picks.

Drafting at 11 in this draft is more harmful to us than not.

[Chiefnj2]

But that's not really the debate.

It's:

A) BPA in Trent Richardson. (top 5 or so talent)
vs
B) Slightly reaching and taking the best say RT available (maybe top 15 talent)

Furthermore, we can't assume JC will be the same guy he was before.

People have to stop saying he's a top 5 talent if he falls to 11/12.

[suds79]

C) Trading down (doesn't matter if we get robbed) and loading more picks.

Drafting at 11 in this draft is more harmful to us than not.

Hey if we can trade down, I'm cool with that. We could use a guy like Poe.

If it can happen? Great. But if if can't? What do you do?

[htismaqe]

Isn't that your reasoning? You think the offense will score points and get a few more wins and that will lead to no QB change.

No, I think the offense will build around a run-first mindset, protecting the QB enough that there is no perceived need to change the QB.

The number of wins is irrelevant. It's WHAT is won that matters.

[O.city]

I don't really think there is anyway RIchardson makes it to us anyway.

[BoneKrusher]

well then,
why not sign Manning and draft Richardson?

we get a Franchise QB and the best player Available.

whattaya say?

[suds79]

People have to stop saying he's a top 5 talent if he falls to 11/12.

Of course you can.

Otherwise guys like the Mel Kipers (insert any draft guy you want) of the world wouldn't have their big board and their mocks.

There's looking at the top players in the draft. And then there's mocks.

Was Christian Ponder the 12th best player in the draft last year? Of course not. But teams are always willing to reach for QBs.

[Chiefnj2]

No, I think the offense will build around a run-first mindset, protecting the QB enough that there is no perceived need to change the QB.

The number of wins is irrelevant. It's WHAT is won that matters.

I hate to break it to you, but if Pioli honestly doesn't see Cassel for what he is, then he doesn't need Richardson to disguise that fact.

[Fritz88]

Hey if we can trade down, I'm cool with that. We could use a guy like Poe.

If it can happen? Great. But if if can't? What do you do?

See my edit.

[htismaqe]

It won't change in the next couple of years:shrug:

So if we daft O line and improve our O line isn't that going to improve our running game and get us some wins? If we improve any part of our team couldn't that lead to wins and prolong the career of Matt Cassel?

Maybe we should bench our best players next season so Cassel can be further exposed as a suck QB.

A RT doesn't have the ability, in any way, to dictate offensive philosophy. A RB does.

I'm not against incremental improvements in any aspect of the team. I'm against incremental improvements that could prevent us from reaching our ultimate goal.

Offenses built around RBs don't win it all. They just don't.

[htismaqe]

I hate to break it to you, but if Pioli honestly doesn't see Cassel for what he is, then he doesn't need Richardson to disguise that fact.

Pioli won't see Cassel for what he is until the seats are empty.

A dynamic playmaker at RB, like Richardson, fills seats more than anything else. See also, Adrian Peterson.

[MoreLemonPledge]

Giants outrushed the Pats in the Super Bowl. They held on to the ball for practically the entire first quarter. Ahmad Bradshaw almost single-handedly outperformed the rest of the Patriots running backs.

[htismaqe]

Giants outrushed the Pats in the Super Bowl. They held on to the ball for practically the entire first quarter. Ahmad Bradshaw almost single-handedly outperformed the rest of the Patriots running backs.

The offense isn't built around Ahmad Bradshaw.

[philfree]

A RT doesn't have the ability, in any way, to dictate offensive philosophy. A RB does.

I'm not against incremental improvements in any aspect of the team. I'm against incremental improvements that could prevent us from reaching our ultimate goal.

Offenses built around RBs don't win it all. They just don't.

Having a good run blocking line could dictate offensive philosophy couldn't it?

[tooge]

this thead is like discussing if you would choose to fly to work tomorrow if you woke up with wings. Richardson isn't going to make it out of the top 10.

[MoreLemonPledge]

The offense isn't built around Ahmad Bradshaw.

Correct, but to think that the Giants' running game was not a deciding factor in the outcome of the Super Bowl and their success in the playoffs is asinine.

[BigMeatballDave]

People have to stop saying he's a top 5 talent if he falls to 11/12.

What? LMAO

Just because a player is not taken in the top 5, doesn't mean he's not top 5 talent.

[BigCatDaddy]

A RT doesn't have the ability, in any way, to dictate offensive philosophy. A RB does.

I'm not against incremental improvements in any aspect of the team. I'm against incremental improvements that could prevent us from reaching our ultimate goal.

Offenses built around RBs don't win it all. They just don't.

That line of thinking is exactly how this happens.

"For Chief fans who want a tackle or something else over Richardson, let me remind you of Arizona's 2007 NFL Draft. The Cardinals had a very slight need at running back (as much as Kansas City needs one), and Adrian Peterson was on the board at No. 5. They instead opted to take an inferior talent who filled a much bigger need. Five years later, I'm sure Arizona would rather have Peterson over Levi Brown."

[htismaqe]

Having a good run blocking line could dictate offensive philosophy couldn't it?

The line is comprised of FIVE players, not 1.

[htismaqe]

Correct, but to think that the Giants' running game was not a deciding factor in the outcome of the Super Bowl and their success in the playoffs is asinine.

They didn't spend a 1st rounder on their RB. Hell, they didn't spend the equivalent of a 1st rounder on Jacobs and Bradshaw COMBINED.

[htismaqe]

That line of thinking is exactly how this happens.

"For Chief fans who want a tackle or something else over Richardson, let me remind you of Arizona's 2007 NFL Draft. The Cardinals had a very slight need at running back (as much as Kansas City needs one), and Adrian Peterson was on the board at No. 5. They instead opted to take an inferior talent who filled a much bigger need. Five years later, I'm sure Arizona would rather have Peterson over Levi Brown."

That's an absolutely brilliant example.

The 2007 Cardinals had Kurt Warner and played in a fucking Super Bowl the next year. ROFL

[saphojunkie]

if trents there though, why not take him to fill that rb spot. we need help everywhere

Of COURSE he'll be there. Because there will be ten other teams that understand RB is just not that valuable of a position anymore.

Saying "if Trent Richardson is there, you take him!" is like saying, "If you're open for 3, shoot the ball!"

You'll always have an uncontested 3 pointer. Because the other guy will give you that. Just because it's available doesn't mean you take it.

Adrian Peterson is by far the most talented running back in the league. He is the complete package. He is hall of fame good. He destroys worlds.

The Vikings are drafting in the top 3. They were in the top 10 last year.

The game has changed; it's that simple. If you do not have the quarterback, then nothing else matters.

[suds79]

That's an absolutely brilliant example.

The 2007 Cardinals had Kurt Warner and played in a ****ing Super Bowl the next year. ROFL

Are you claiming they made the right decision in Brown over AP?

Shoot AP was so good back then, I'd venture to say they win the SB had they have him instead of Brown.

[philfree]

The line is comprised of FIVE players, not 1.

If you acquire what turns out to be a pro bowl RT that one player could put your O line over the top as a unit. And if we're talking about a good run blocking unit then that could dictate the offensive philosophy.

I don't see passing on good/great players in hopes of getting some unknown player down the road as a way to build a winning team.

[Wallcrawler]

The biggest frustration here is Pioli's ego. If we had ANY other GM besides Scott Pioli, Cassel would be history already, and a tradeup attempt at RG3 would be a possibility. This regime has backed Matt Cassel ad nauseum, and if they do what truly needs to be done which is pay the high cost of trading up to get RG3, then all it will do is prove outright how full of shit they have been for this entire time.

If they claim to have faith in Matt Cassel, then theres no way they would sell the farm to draft a bigtime QB in the first round. Theres no way that Scott Pioli will admit that he made a 64 million dollar mistake.


The best thing that could happen to the Chiefs front office right now is the firing of Scott Pioli. .....or Pioli getting hit by a bus.

As long as Pioli is here, Matt Cassel is it. He cant see that the only thing that Matt Cassel has in common with Tom Brady is the fact that both guys started their careers riding the pine.

That being said, I just want the Chiefs to get the best player they can get at 12. Perhaps one day, they will have enough players to win in spite of the QB.

[notorious]

The game has changed; it's that simple. If you do not have the quarterback, then nothing else matters.


Post more.

A lot more.

[Coogs]

Perhaps one day, they will have enough players to win in spite of the QB.

We actually have a pretty fair QB within our grasp. His name is Orton. Yes, he only had 1 TD in three games. His receivers could have helped him out, but they were working on just a very few weeks of knowing each other. Orton easily passed the "eyeball test"... to quote O. City... and clearly moved this team far more easily than Cassel ever has to anyone who was paying attention.

[htismaqe]

Are you claiming they made the right decision in Brown over AP?

Shoot AP was so good back then, I'd venture to say they win the SB had they have him instead of Brown.

I'm saying they ALREADY had Kurt Warner. The other two moves mean very little since they had Warner and thus made it to Super Bowl.

Everybody wants to use the Adrian Peterson comparison but nobody wants to acknowledge the truth - with Adrian Peterson the Vikings thought they could get by with Tarvaris Jackson and Donovan McNabb. They thought they could get over the hump with a broken-down Brett Favre.

[BoneKrusher]

They didn't spend a 1st rounder on their RB. Hell, they didn't spend the equivalent of a 1st rounder on Jacobs and Bradshaw COMBINED.

Bradshaw was a 7th rounder and Jacobs a 4th if i'm not mistaken.

[BigCatDaddy]

Are you claiming they made the right decision in Brown over AP?

Shoot AP was so good back then, I'd venture to say they win the SB had they have him instead of Brown.

No doubt because the Steelers were owning those Cardinal tackles.

Either way it had no effect in them getting Warner, the only difference is if they would have taken the AP they would have been a better team with and after Warner.

The point it to get BETTER.

[suds79]

I'm saying they ALREADY had Kurt Warner. The other two moves mean very little since they had Warner and thus made it to Super Bowl.

Everybody wants to use the Adrian Peterson comparison but nobody wants to acknowledge the truth - with Adrian Peterson the Vikings thought they could get by with Tarvaris Jackson and Donovan McNabb. They thought they could get over the hump with a broken-down Brett Favre.

And I guess that's where we differ.

You think the Chiefs if they draft Richardson will think they could get over the hump with Cassel. That they could do it featuring Richardson. I agree with you that notion is ridiculous. And also sad if true.

I don't think they're related. I think the team should know they need to get a franchise QB to build their team around regardless of Richardson. Furthermore, if they don't understand this, then we're F-ed to matter what we do in the draft.

To me, drafting Richardson would simply be trying to improve the team with the best player available. That's all. Really has nothing to do with the QB from my prospective.

[htismaqe]

If you acquire what turns out to be a pro bowl RT that one player could put your O line over the top as a unit. And if we're talking about a good run blocking unit then that could dictate the offensive philosophy.

I don't see passing on good/great players in hopes of getting some unknown player down the road as a way to build a winning team.

It's not about hope, it's about the reality of the NFL and particularly the Kansas City Chiefs.

Taking a guy like Richardson is what conservative teams do when they want to abandon searching for a QB altogether.

[htismaqe]

No doubt because the Steelers were owning those Cardinal tackles.

Either way it had no effect in them getting Warner, the only difference is if they would have taken the AP they would have been a better team with and after Warner.

The point it to get BETTER.

And again, you've completely missed the point.

The point is to WIN IT ALL.

They had Warner PRIOR to the decision not to take Adrian Peterson. The rest of the discussion is completely irrelevant.

Warner, and the Cardinals, played in the Super Bowl. Adrian Peterson hasn't. Plain and simple.

[htismaqe]

And I guess that's where we differ.

You think the Chiefs if they draft Richardson will think they could get over the hump with Cassel. That they could do it featuring Richardson. I agree with you that notion is ridiculous. And also sad if true.

I don't think they're related. I think the team should know they need to get a franchise QB to build their team around regardless of Richardson. Furthermore, if they don't understand this, then we're F-ed to matter what we do in the draft.

To me, drafting Richardson would simply be trying to improve the team with the best player available. That's all. Really has nothing to do with the QB from my prospective.

THIS team isn't going to do anything with Cassel until the fans demand it. The reason we're hearing about "potential competition" is because they are hearing about unrest in the fanbase.

A couple more seasons like last year, and that unrest will die. The surest way to get more season like that is to revert to Martyball. There's a reason Clark spent so much time with Marty late this past season, he LONGS for those days, when the seats were FULL.

[BigCatDaddy]

It's not about hope, it's about the reality of the NFL and particularly the Kansas City Chiefs.

Taking a guy like Richardson is what conservative teams do when they want to abandon searching for a QB altogether.

So you pass on the potential home run RB and take a lower rated prospect because they play tight end or right tackle?

I don't see a problem in having an LT for Rivers, an Emmitt for Aikman, or Thomas for Kelley, but I guess that's just me. They may not get the QB this year or next year, but someday if/when that happens you want to have talent in place around him. That's how you win it all.

[philfree]

It's not about hope, it's about the reality of the NFL and particularly the Kansas City Chiefs.

Taking a guy like Richardson is what conservative teams do when they want to abandon searching for a QB altogether.


If Richardson is still available when we pick it would just be the Chiefs taking the best player available and have nothing to do with Cassel.

Taking the best players available will never be a bad thing. Passing on great players for some unknown QB in the future isn't the way to build Champion.

Yes passing on a Franchise QB prospect and drafting Richardson would be a huge mistake. But that's not the case here.

[htismaqe]

So you pass on the potential home run RB and take a lower rated prospect because they play tight end or right tackle?

I don't see a problem in having an LT for Rivers, an Emmitt for Aikman, or Thomas for Kelley, but I guess that's just me. They may not get the QB this year or next year, but someday if/when that happens you want to have talent in place around him. That's how you win it all.

LT and Rivers won NOTHING together. Nothing.

Aikman was acquired before Emmitt. Kelly was acquired before Thomas.

Until I get a QB in place, I'm not drafting a home run RB at all. I don't want to be the 1990's Detroit Lions. Sorry.

[htismaqe]

Taking the best players available will never be a bad thing. Passing on great players for some unknown QB in the future isn't the way to build Champion.

Name the teams that were "Champions" with an offense completely focused around a superstar RB that had no QB in place at the time the RB was acquired. Just one.

[suds79]

Name the teams that were "Champions" with an offense completely focused around a superstar RB that had no QB in place at the time the RB was acquired. Just one.

Completely focused? Impossible. Nobody is suggesting we go that route. With or without Richardson.

St Louis Rams.

Acquired Marshall Faulk in a trade. Was to be him with Trent Green but we know how that story played out.

Marshall & Kurt both won MVPs in separate years.

So to win a SB, not only do you need a franchise QB (we all agree with this) but you also must get him before you get a stud RB? So having Jamaal is hurting us right now?

I'm more concerned about the Chiefs just getting that franchise QB and couldn't care less who else is on the team before we get him. If we could get one this off-season, sign me up. But it doesn't look like that's possible.

[philfree]

Completely focused? Impossible. Nobody is suggesting we go that route. With or without Richardson.St Louis Rams.

Acquired Marshall Faulk in a trade. Was to be him with Trent Green but we know how that story played out.

Marshall & Kurt both won MVPs in separate years.

So to win a SB, not only do you need a franchise QB (we all agree with this) but you also must get him before you get a stud RB? So having Jamaal is hurting us right now?

I'm more concerned about the Chiefs just getting that franchise QB and couldn't care less who else is on the team before we get him. If we could get one this off-season, sign me up. But it doesn't look like that's possible.

In the bold.

[BigCatDaddy]

Name the teams that were "Champions" with an offense completely focused around a superstar RB that had no QB in place at the time the RB was acquired. Just one.

Pittsburgh?

[BigMeatballDave]

Pittsburgh?

When?

[philfree]

Pittsburgh?

And they're a contender most every year and also the franchise Clark wants to immulate.

[suds79]

When?

I'm guessing he's talking about their 1st SB.

Had HOF RB Jerome Bettis. Then got Big Ben. Won a SB in Ben's 2nd year.

[Molitoth]

Until I get a QB in place, I'm not drafting a home run RB at all. I don't want to be the 1990's Detroit Lions. Sorry.

To be fair the Lions drafted Andre Ware.... he was just a bust.

[BigCatDaddy]

I'm guessing he's talking about their 1st SB.

Had HOF RB Jerome Bettis. Then got Big Ben. Won a SB in Ben's 2nd year.

Right. Bettis was winding down, but still a probowl alt that year. They went out and got the QB to complete the puzzle for a great running game and defense.

[MoreLemonPledge]

Of course finding a QB is paramount. There just isn't one whose value is commensurate with the Chiefs' current draft position. We know there's no chance in hell they'll trade up. Fact is, there likely won't be any player that fits our needs and is also a value at the 11/12 spot. You go for best player available, which could very well be Richardson. People talk about how the great franchises take BPA and never reach. Otherwise we'll end up with another Tyson Jackson.

[BigMeatballDave]

Right. Bettis was winding down, but still a probowl alt that year. They went out and got the QB to complete the puzzle for a great running game and defense.

Weak sauce.

Horrible example.

[keg in kc]

I hesitate to agree with the retard that started the thread, but runningback is, I think, not a position that I would want to spend a first round pick on, not in today's NFL. And it's not because it's a passing league, although that is part of it; it's because of the beating they take. Their careers are just too short to spend a premium pick on. Beyond that, to tie in the 'passing league' bit, as offenses have become more complex, it's harder and harder to get rookies on the field, so you're talking about a career that's shortened on the front end and shortened on the back end. So it seems to me that another direction might be the wiser choice.

[htismaqe]

Completely focused? Impossible. Nobody is suggesting we go that route. With or without Richardson.

Of course, nobody is SUGGESTING we go that route. I'm just acknowledging what the Chiefs WILL do. This team ALWAYS opts for the safe, "fill the seats" route. Why give them the perfect ammo to do that?

So to win a SB, not only do you need a franchise QB (we all agree with this) but you also must get him before you get a stud RB? So having Jamaal is hurting us right now?

We ran the ball 100 more times than we passed it last year. That's not a recipe for ultimate success.

I'm more concerned about the Chiefs just getting that franchise QB and couldn't care less who else is on the team before we get him. If we could get one this off-season, sign me up. But it doesn't look like that's possible.

It's not about what we want. It's about what they will do. If they get an elite RB, ala AP, they won't continue to look for a franchise QB. It will be just like the 90s all over again.

[htismaqe]

Of course finding a QB is paramount. There just isn't one whose value is commensurate with the Chiefs' current draft position. We know there's no chance in hell they'll trade up. Fact is, there likely won't be any player that fits our needs and is also a value at the 11/12 spot. You go for best player available, which could very well be Richardson. People talk about how the great franchises take BPA and never reach. Otherwise we'll end up with another Tyson Jackson.

Take a look at the RBs taken in the top 15 over the past 20 years or so and look at the list of teams that took them.

There's a TON of shit teams on that list. Literally.

[Brock]

continue to look for a franchise QB.

ROFL

[MoreLemonPledge]

Take a look at the RBs taken in the top 15 over the past 20 years or so and look at the list of teams that took them.

There's a TON of shit teams on that list. Literally.

So drafting a RB in the top half of the first round and losing are mutually inclusive?

Take a look at teams who reached for positions of need rather than drafting BPA over the past 20 years and I bet they're pretty shitty, too.

[htismaqe]

ROFL

When the seats are empty, they'll get one. They won't have a choice. But by all means, lets bring back the 90s...the "glory years" of our franchise wouldn't cut it in other cities...

[Brock]

When the seats are empty, they'll get one. They won't have a choice. But by all means, lets bring back the 90s...the "glory years" of our franchise wouldn't cut it in other cities...

They won't have a choice? We've already been through this, or did you hibernate through the Herm years?

[O.city]

Maybe it will work this time htis.


If Richardson is there I guess I'll take him, but only if we are bringing in another qb. If we are keeping Orton, I'm all for it. We saw what he could do by running play action with Jackie Battle and thomas Jones.

Or if it's Manning i'd do it, although we have to uprgade the RT spot for sure sometime it its' Manning.

[htismaqe]

They won't have a choice? We've already been through this, or did you hibernate through the Herm years?

The seats are more empty now than the were then. It's a long process. Killing people's loyalty takes longer than to artificially reinforce it.

People love their teams...the vast majority of them are looking for any reason at all to have hope.

[Frosty]

It's not about what we want. It's about what they will do. If they get an elite RB, ala AP, they won't continue to look for a franchise QB. It will be just like the 90s all over again.

Funny, I spent most of the 90's (post-Okoye) wishing the Chiefs had an elite RB.

Greg Hill, Harvey Williams, Donnell Bennet... :facepalm:


EDIT: Wanted a QB, too, of course.

[rageeumr]

I'm late to this party, but I generally think that using anything earlier than a 3rd rounder on a RB is a wasted pick. There's just too much talent typically available in the later rounds at that position.

The delta between the ultra-hyped college RBs and their later round counterparts just isn't as much as it is for some other positions.

Then you have to figure the typically short shelf life of a NFL running back.

Not to mention the fact that's been covered 100 times in this thread so far: the NFL is a pass-first league.

Watching Jackie Battle this year put a little dent in my theory, but I think as long as you're not rolling with a guy who is probably a marginal NFL talent (like Battle), you're just better off investing in other positions where there's more disparity in talent and a longer average period of effectiveness.

[htismaqe]

Funny, I spent most of the 90's (post-Okoye) wishing the Chiefs had an elite RB.

Greg Hill, Harvey Williams, Donnell Bennet... :facepalm:


EDIT: Wanted a QB, too, of course.

Doubly funny...I did too.

In fact, I joined the Star board specifically to join the Corey Dillon discussion. ROFL

[whoman69]

Of course, nobody is SUGGESTING we go that route. I'm just acknowledging what the Chiefs WILL do. This team ALWAYS opts for the safe, "fill the seats" route. Why give them the perfect ammo to do that?

We ran the ball 100 more times than we passed it last year. That's not a recipe for ultimate success.

It's not about what we want. It's about what they will do. If they get an elite RB, ala AP, they won't continue to look for a franchise QB. It will be just like the 90s all over again.

This team could go with anyone in the first round, RB, RT, DT, and still win the division and be out of contention for a franchise QB again. The division is historically weak. We have a last place schedule again. Where do we get that franchise QB drafting from even worse position next year?

We all know that Cassel is not the answer. Even as a game manager he is a failure because he cannot make the defense pay when they over-protect against the run. Baltimore and SF both made the conference championships this year. They could have very easily both made it to the SB without franchise QBs because of their defense. The best QB doesn't always decide who wins. Where was Brees? Where was Rodgers?

Those teams with the awesome offenses all have a fatal flaw. They all have a poor defense. We beat the best team in the league this year at their peak because their defense was their flaw. The Giants almost missed the playoffs because their defense was so bad this year with injuries. They came together after their parts healed up. The Giants during the regular season were 27th in defense, 25th in scoring defense and were outscored despite being 9th in the league in points scored. But when it all came together they stopped the Falcons cold, held Rodgers to 20 points, and made just enough plays to hold down the 49ers and the Pats when the offense couldn't score 30. Would you say they were pretty lucky or that they made their own luck?

[Chiefnj2]

We ran the ball 100 more times than we passed it last year. That's not a recipe for ultimate success.




With Tyler Palko as the starter for 4 games what do you expect?

[htismaqe]

With Tyler Palko as the starter for 4 games what do you expect?

I still consider Tyler Palko part of "this" season.

When I said "last season" I meant 2010.

[htismaqe]

This team could go with anyone in the first round, RB, RT, DT, and still win the division and be out of contention for a franchise QB again. The division is historically weak. We have a last place schedule again. Where do we get that franchise QB drafting from even worse position next year?

We all know that Cassel is not the answer. Even as a game manager he is a failure because he cannot make the defense pay when they over-protect against the run. Baltimore and SF both made the conference championships this year. They could have very easily both made it to the SB without franchise QBs because of their defense. The best QB doesn't always decide who wins. Where was Brees? Where was Rodgers?

Those teams with the awesome offenses all have a fatal flaw. They all have a poor defense. We beat the best team in the league this year at their peak because their defense was their flaw. The Giants almost missed the playoffs because their defense was so bad this year with injuries. They came together after their parts healed up. The Giants during the regular season were 27th in defense, 25th in scoring defense and were outscored despite being 9th in the league in points scored. But when it all came together they stopped the Falcons cold, held Rodgers to 20 points, and made just enough plays to hold down the 49ers and the Pats when the offense couldn't score 30. Would you say they were pretty lucky or that they made their own luck?

Great post.

We should be drafting on defense.

[Hydrae]

There are just too many variables. injuries, other players performance growth/decline, rookie QB transition to pro speed and game, let alone transitition of that QB to "elite" status and the time for that to happen.

I want to win as bad as anyone, I've lost confidence in MC and want improved QB play also. But "trade up at any costs" and we "can't win with a retread QB" are two concepts I'm just not sold on. Either way could be successful, either way could be disasterous. Whats the best decision?

We won't trade the farm, we should make a play for retaining Orton or another retread. We'll probably draft a rookie in 2nd or 3rd range. And hopefully we trade MC on draft day for an order of tacos, but I'm not holding my breath.

I like tacos.

[BoneKrusher]

With Tyler Palko as the starter for 4 games what do you expect?

it wasn't any better when Castle was playing.
i seem to remember a couple games he started this past season and didnt even crack 100 yards per game.

[Setsuna]

The point is, the QB position will not be addressed the way it should be. The next best thing? RB. Trent Richardson. At best the QB position will be addressed next 2013, then you can get a damn OL like you all want. Problem solved. /thread

[htismaqe]

The point is, the QB position will not be addressed the way it should be. The next best thing? RB. Trent Richardson. At best the QB position will be addressed next 2013, then you can get a damn OL like you all want. Problem solved. /thread

That's just the thing.

This is the CHIEFS.

If they take Trent Richardson, they won't EVER address the QB position. They probably won't anyway, but a dynamic RB all but guarantees they won't see the need to do anything else.

[RealSNR]

The Colts had Peyton Manning on the mind before they said, "You know what we really need? An Edgerrin James."

[saphojunkie]

That line of thinking is exactly how this happens.

"For Chief fans who want a tackle or something else over Richardson, let me remind you of Arizona's 2007 NFL Draft. The Cardinals had a very slight need at running back (as much as Kansas City needs one), and Adrian Peterson was on the board at No. 5. They instead opted to take an inferior talent who filled a much bigger need. Five years later, I'm sure Arizona would rather have Peterson over Levi Brown."

And yet, the Minnesota Vikings, who did take Adrian Peterson, are drafting #3 overall this year, and they are targeting...what's that? An offensive tackle?!!?

Your point makes no sense and absolutely shatters under scrutiny. Different teams have different needs at different times. The only reason the Cardinals would want Adrian Peterson is that he has become a HOF running back while Brown has been a bust.

If they had drafted Jake Long or Joe Thomas, guess what? They wouldn't be upset about it.

[keg in kc]

Great post.

We should be drafting on defense.In the first round? What's left that they need at this point, assuming Carr's re-signed and Berry comes back okay? A nose? I guess some would argue MLB to replace Belcher, but a run-defending 3-4 ILB in the first doesn't seem right. What else do they need? They've finally got a pair of pass rushers, DJ's in the middle, the secondary is set? That leaves the line. A nose or an end.

(Which of course sounds very Patriot-way, and not very exciting)

Course, drafting at 11, odds are it won't be very exciting regardless. For all the talk about the difficulty of landing a franchise QB at that spot, it's going to be just as bad for picking up an elite player at any other position. I'm fully expecting a "WTF" pick that everybody thought was going in the 2nd round until about 3 days before the draft.

[Bewbies]

In the first round? What's left that they need at this point, assuming Carr's re-signed and Berry comes back okay? A nose? I guess some would argue MLB to replace Belcher, but a run-defending 3-4 ILB in the first doesn't seem right. What else do they need? They've finally got a pair of pass rushers, DJ's in the middle, the secondary is set? That leaves the line. A nose or an end.

(Which of course sounds very Patriot-way, and not very exciting)

Course, drafting at 11, odds are it won't be very exciting regardless. For all the talk about the difficulty of landing a franchise QB at that spot, it's going to be just as bad for picking up an elite player at any other position. I'm fully expecting a "WTF" pick that everybody thought was going in the 2nd round until about 3 days before the draft.

If we go D in the 1st I want Upshaw. We need more than 2 pass rushers, and that kid is going to be a stud.

Maybe we can go full on Giants and have like 4-6 guys that are awesome pass rushers. That might, just might, make Cassel's 90 yard games big enough to win.

[Chiefaholic]

Cool.... Now all we have to do is find a franchise caliber QB left on the boards at #12 overall....

[htismaqe]

In the first round? What's left that they need at this point, assuming Carr's re-signed and Berry comes back okay? A nose? I guess some would argue MLB to replace Belcher, but a run-defending 3-4 ILB in the first doesn't seem right. What else do they need? They've finally got a pair of pass rushers, DJ's in the middle, the secondary is set? That leaves the line. A nose or an end.

(Which of course sounds very Patriot-way, and not very exciting)

Course, drafting at 11, odds are it won't be very exciting regardless. For all the talk about the difficulty of landing a franchise QB at that spot, it's going to be just as bad for picking up an elite player at any other position. I'm fully expecting a "WTF" pick that everybody thought was going in the 2nd round until about 3 days before the draft.

The Giants had Strahan and took Osi. And Tuck. And Kiwanuka. And Jason Pierre-Paul.

Seems to me like we should draft a pass rusher.

[keg in kc]

If we go D in the 1st I want Upshaw. We need more than 2 pass rushers, and that kid is going to be a stud.

Maybe we can go full on Giants and have like 4-6 guys that are awesome pass rushers. That might, just might, make Cassel's 90 yard games big enough to win.

The Giants had Strahan and took Osi. And Tuck. And Kiwanuka. And Jason Pierre-Paul.

Seems to me like we should draft a pass rusher.The question would be whether the Chiefs are in a position to do that at this point. I'd say they're probably not. I'm not sure they can afford a luxury pick, trying to stock one position while leaving holes in others (like QB and NT in particular).

But who knows. I don't think they're going to be swimming in obvious choices when it's their time at the podium. This is probably the rare year where I'd side with the people who wished they won a few less games.

[htismaqe]

The question would be whether the Chiefs in a position to do that at this point. I'd say they're probably not. I'm not sure they can afford a luxury pick, trying to stock one position while leaving holes in others (like QB and NT in particular).

I hear you.

It really comes down to the fact that there aren't any real good options this offseason at QB.

I understand why people want to see Trent Richardson here - everybody wants to win. But how much do we want to win in the regular season at the expense of postseason wins?

We've seen Martyball first-hand, it doesn't work.

[keg in kc]

I hear you.

It really comes down to the fact that there aren't any real good options this offseason at QB.

I understand why people want to see Trent Richardson here - everybody wants to win. But how much do we want to win in the regular season at the expense of postseason wins?

We've seen Martyball first-hand, it doesn't work.You're preaching to the choir on Richardson. I don't think that pick would make sense from any angle.

Which means it's probably what they'll do. That or a lineman. Always a lineman.

[O.city]

Depending on what we do at quarterback is what I would do.

I agree with htis that Richardson could mean more Cassel, but we can't just skip the draft to make him look bad. R

Richardson is a monster AP type running back. If you can add one of those to your team you do it.

The key is not relying on him to get you where you wanna go. You can use him and CHarles to lean on at times and make the passing game that much easier. Hell if we were to bring back Orton or even Manning, they could have a field day with the 8 in the box defenses they would see.

[Chief_For_Life58]

The Giants had Strahan and took Osi. And Tuck. And Kiwanuka. And Jason Pierre-Paul.

Seems to me like we should draft a pass rusher.

seems to me youre right

[FloridaMan88]

This is ****ing stupid. The Ravens and Niners rode the backs of their stud RB's and defenses this year. They were both fluke plays away from being in the SB themselves. Would we prefer a Franchise QB, sure, but until you get one you have to figure out a way to win with what you can get.

You can't win without a great passing game in today's NFL.

The 49ers played the "great defense, great running game, don't turn the ball over" style virtually to perfection this season. But in the end they had zero room for error because they didn't have a downfield passing game outside of their TE Davis.

The last team to win with a game manager QB was the Bucs and Brad Johnson. That was 10 years ago.

It is impossible to win the Super Bowl in today's NFL without a high octane passing game.

The Patriots were 2nd in the NFL in passing yards. The Giants were 5th in the NFL in passing yards.

Last year the Packers were 5th in the NFL in passing yards.

The year before that the Saints were 4th in passing yards.

[FloridaMan88]

Giants outrushed the Pats in the Super Bowl. They held on to the ball for practically the entire first quarter. Ahmad Bradshaw almost single-handedly outperformed the rest of the Patriots running backs.

Bradshaw was a 7th round draft pick.

Obviously the Giants didn't need to waste a first round draft pick on a RB.

[FloridaMan88]

I hear you.

It really comes down to the fact that there aren't any real good options this offseason at QB.

I understand why people want to see Trent Richardson here - everybody wants to win. But how much do we want to win in the regular season at the expense of postseason wins?

We've seen Martyball first-hand, it doesn't work.

If the Chiefs draft Trent Richardson and Charles returns to health, they are essentially the team they were 2 years ago... good enough to win 9, 10 games in the regular season, but with no chance to advance far in the playoffs.

Drafting Richardson accomplishes nothing in the grand scheme of being in a better position to win a Super Bowl.

True fans might feel good that the Chiefs drafted the "best player on the board", it will no doubt warm the hearts of everyone who believes in the outdated theory of "running the football to win", but in the end it won't make the Chiefs any more of a legit Super Bowl contender until the QB situation is resolved.

[RealSNR]

Not only that, but drafting Richardson would probably decrease Jamaal's fantasy football value by at least a couple rounds. Guys would be too afraid to draft him as anything more than a RB2.

[Brock]

Not only that, but drafting Richardson would probably decrease Jamaal's fantasy football value by at least a couple rounds. Guys would be too afraid to draft him as anything more than a RB2.

Think we're already there.

[philfree]

Not only that, but drafting Richardson would probably decrease Jamaal's fantasy football value by at least a couple rounds. Guys would be too afraid to draft him as anything more than a RB2.

LOL Well that's what it's all about.

[MoreLemonPledge]

Bradshaw was a 7th round draft pick.

Obviously the Giants didn't need to waste a first round draft pick on a RB.

Brady was a 7th round draft pick. Regardless, my point was that while it is a passing league, you need a quality rushing game as well.

I'm not arguing against the Chiefs drafting a QB. It's just not going to happen. If Richardson is by far the BPA, he should be the pick. Not a guard or right tackle that we have to reach for.

[Setsuna]

I see the concern with making Cassel look like a boss if TR is back there gaining chunks of yards at a time and Charles breaking 20+ yd TD runs. Yet if you draft a T or G and Cassel has more time to not panic, than he has a higher % to not "$hit the bed" as so many of you have described his play. Then what? Then he completes more passes and makes less mistakes. THEN what happens? My point is no matter what you do, you make Cassel look better than he is, unless you draft on defense I suppose. Well then, Janoris Jenkins it is!

[RealSNR]

Your mom was a 7th round draft pick

[Chief_For_Life58]

If the Chiefs draft Trent Richardson and Charles returns to health, they are essentially the team they were 2 years ago... good enough to win 9, 10 games in the regular season, but with no chance to advance far in the playoffs.

Drafting Richardson accomplishes nothing in the grand scheme of being in a better position to win a Super Bowl.

True fans might feel good that the Chiefs drafted the "best player on the board", it will no doubt warm the hearts of everyone who believes in the outdated theory of "running the football to win", but in the end it won't make the Chiefs any more of a legit Super Bowl contender until the QB situation is resolved.

our qb situation is just fucked this year. get over it. if tr is there when we pick. take him. we might not do anything special this year but itll make us a better team and if our qb situation still sucks then we can argue about it again next off season. What do you want pioli to do? trade his next 3 drafts for the first pick with luck? rg3 isnt worth what hes gonna be priced at. hes got good gums but its not enough to validate trading up to get him. What do you want pioli to do with the qb position? what can he do?

[gonefishin53]

Trent Richardson will be the best player available from pick #5 on. Most of the teams picking between 5 and 11 don't have an all-pro RB on the roster. Tampa Bay and Miami would be my picks to take TR.

[htismaqe]

I see the concern with making Cassel look like a boss if TR is back there gaining chunks of yards at a time and Charles breaking 20+ yd TD runs. Yet if you draft a T or G and Cassel has more time to not panic, than he has a higher % to not "$hit the bed" as so many of you have described his play. Then what? Then he completes more passes and makes less mistakes. THEN what happens? My point is no matter what you do, you make Cassel look better than he is, unless you draft on defense I suppose. Well then, Janoris Jenkins it is!

A RT or OG marginally reduces Cassel's chance to shit down his leg.

A guy like Richardson has the potential to make the chance SO LOW that it's barely noticeable to the average fan.

[htismaqe]

If you already have a good QB and you can add one of those to your team you do it.

FYP

[philfree]

A RT or OG marginally reduces Cassel's chance to shit down his leg.

A guy like Richardson has the potential to make the chance SO LOW that it's barely noticeable to the average fan.

So if we just have a healthy JC and we improve our O line would it be any different then if we drafted Richardson? We'll run the ball with great success either way.

[htismaqe]

So if we just have a healthy JC and we improve our O line would it be any different then if we drafted Richardson? We'll run the ball with great success either way.

Great success with Charles is WAY different than success with Charles AND Richardson.

We could actually WIN those games where Cassel throws for 88 yards...

[Setsuna]

A RT or OG marginally reduces Cassel's chance to shit down his leg.

A guy like Richardson has the potential to make the chance SO LOW that it's barely noticeable to the average fan.

Yeeah I guess. Trade down and get Claiborne/Kirkpatrick/Jenkins in Rd 2 if either is available.

[philfree]

Great success with Charles is WAY different than success with Charles AND Richardson.

We could actually WIN those games where Cassel throws for 88 yards...

I think that happened already with JC.

I share your pain but IMO you just can't dodge the available talent in hopes of an unknown quanity.

[Chief_For_Life58]

no player is going to be available at 11/12 that some team drafting after us is gonna HAVE to have. I dont see that happening. Hopefully it changes before the draft. We will not be able to trade out of our first pick...

[htismaqe]

I think that happened already with JC.

I share your pain but IMO you just can't dodge the available talent in hopes of an unknown quanity.

I'm not dodging talent in the hopes of an UNKNOWN quantity. The lack of a QB is a KNOWN quantity.

I'm not arguing against Richardson because we need a QB INSTEAD. I'm arguing against Richardson because I fear he will further cement in Pioli's mind that we don't need a QB AT ALL.

[O.city]

I'll say it again, if we do bring in legit qb comp and Richardson is sitting there when we pick, take him.


If we resign Orton, I'm all for it.

[whoman69]

I'm not dodging talent in the hopes of an UNKNOWN quantity. The lack of a QB is a KNOWN quantity.

I'm not arguing against Richardson because we need a QB INSTEAD. I'm arguing against Richardson because I fear he will further cement in Pioli's mind that we don't need a QB AT ALL.

I'd say that's pretty poor reasoning. You can't stop improving your team in hopes that the blind will see.

[htismaqe]

I'd say that's pretty poor reasoning. You can't stop improving your team in hopes that the blind will see.

I never suggested we should stop improving the team.

Taking Richardson isn't "improving", it's a basic building block for a team that's trying to do the OPPOSITE of what is currently successful in the NFL.

[Brock]

I never suggested we should stop improving the team.

Taking Richardson isn't "improving", it's a basic building block for a team that's trying to do the OPPOSITE of what is currently successful in the NFL.

The super bowl could have just as easily been the Ravens vs. 49ers, so I'm not really sure what passes for what's currently successful.

[BossChief]

I'm saying they ALREADY had Kurt Warner. The other two moves mean very little since they had Warner and thus made it to Super Bowl.

Everybody wants to use the Adrian Peterson comparison but nobody wants to acknowledge the truth - with Adrian Peterson the Vikings thought they could get by with Tarvaris Jackson and Donovan McNabb. They thought they could get over the hump with a broken-down Brett Favre.After the Vikings drafted Peterson, they tried everything they could to bring in a franchise quarterback.

They signed guys that had been to multiple championship games and a superbowl in McNabb, They tried it with adding Favre that had won superbowls and was a league MVP player...then, they tried the route of drafting a first round quarterback.

Im not following how Peterson PROHIBITED them from trying to add that quarterback AT ALL.

Also, it seems your whole argument is that we shouldnt take the best players available to us in the draft because we have Matt Cassel and thats a little foolish. Dont you think?

It doesnt matter what players we have, if Cassel fails and they continue to trot him out there, it doesnt matter who is at running back or OL or who we have rushing the passer.

Id take Trent Richardson simply because I believe even Pioli is a few bad throws away from pulling the plug on Cassel and that once that change is made, we need to give the next guy up all the weapons we can to help him succeed.

Id much rather see Ricky Stanzi have a guy like Trent Richardson to lean on while he is getting up to speed as the teams starter rather than have a good right tackle like Reiff.

We ran the ball 100 more times than we passed it last year. That's not a recipe for ultimate success.

It's not about what we want. It's about what they will do. If they get an elite RB, ala AP, they won't continue to look for a franchise QB. It will be just like the 90s all over again.Actually, that's not the truth according to NFL.com.

We ran the ball 487 times last year and threw it 500 times.

The thought that just because we take a game breaking running back means we will never even attempt to upgrade at quarterback is lunacy.

If Cassel fails this year, he wont even end the year as the starter.

[htismaqe]

The super bowl could have just as easily been the Ravens vs. 49ers, so I'm not really sure what passes for what's currently successful.

Even though they are both run-heavy teams, they're not BUILT around their RB.

The Ravens drafted their RB before their QB, but they're also one of the best personnel offices in the entire NFL - they're not the Chiefs.

[Brock]

Even though they are both run-heavy teams, they're not BUILT around their RB.

The Ravens drafted their RB before their QB, but they're also one of the best personnel offices in the entire NFL - they're not the Chiefs.

What are they built around?

[htismaqe]

After the Vikings drafted Peterson, they tried everything they could to bring in a franchise quarterback.

They signed guys that had been to multiple championship games and a superbowl in McNabb, They tried it with adding Favre that had won superbowls and was a league MVP player...then, they tried the route of drafting a first round quarterback.

Are you serious? McNabb was DONE when he left Philly, anybody that didn't know it then was THOROUGHLY convinced after his failure in Washington. To suggest that acquiring McNabb was even a half-hearted attempt at acquiring a franchise QB is laughable.

Just like us in 1993, they thought bringing in broken down retreads could get them over the top. Big shock that they were dead wrong.

Im not following how Peterson PROHIBITED them from trying to add that quarterback AT ALL.

Nobody is prohibited from trying to add a QB. It's just the conservative nature of the NFL. I'm not saying the Chiefs CAN'T still acquire a franchise QB, I'm saying they WON'T. Trent Richardson gets them to 9-7 and the occasional playoff game, which sells just enough tickets to feed the SAME FUCKING CYCLE we've seen for the better part of 30 years.

Also, it seems your whole argument is that we shouldnt take the best players available to us in the draft because we have Matt Cassel and thats a little foolish. Dont you think?

You clearly don't understand my point.

Id much rather see Ricky Stanzi have a guy like Trent Richardson to lean on while he is getting up to speed as the teams starter rather than have a good right tackle like Reiff.

If Stanzi is your QB, great. Take Richardson. If your QB is Cassel, Moore, Orton, or any other stop-gap/retread that will take us nowhere, then no. Do not feed that cycle any more.

Actually, that's not the truth according to NFL.com.

We ran the ball 487 times last year and threw it 500 times.

The thought that just because we take a game breaking running back means we will never even attempt to upgrade at quarterback is lunacy.

If Cassel fails this year, he wont even end the year as the starter.

You completely missed where I said that "last year" is 2010. The Super Bowl was 2 days ago so in my mind, 2011 is still "this year".

[saphojunkie]

I think the problem with this discussion is that it is predicated on two assumptions:

1. Trent Richardson is, in fact, going to be the best player available at #11.
2. Having the best running back in the draft is more valuable than having the second best offensive tackle.

This whole situation reeks of Larry Johnson.

- A probowl running back, supremely talented. Scoring threat from everywhere. Coming off a major injury.
- Clear needs elsewhere.
- Drafting another running back with a different skill set (bruiser vs elusive)

I know what people will say: "You rarely find this combination of size, speed, power, and elusiveness!" Fine. But are those skills that genuinely benefit our team more than, say, giving our QB an extra second or two in pass protection?

Personally, if I had the choice between having any combination of Priest, LJ, Jamaal, and Trent Richardson OR having our offensive line with Roaf, Waters, Wiegmann, Shields, and Tait...I'm taking the offensive line every time. An elite offensive line opens running lanes, gives receivers time to get open, and often neutralizes the other team's best defenders (pass rushers, CB who can't cover for over 5 seconds).

I'm sure Richardson is talented, and is going to make some team very happy. Great. We have other needs right now. Right tackle, ILB, CB (carr?), WR (bowe?), nose tackle, and QUARTERBACK are bigger needs than a second running back.

If we fill some or most of those needs in free agency, then fine - draft Richardson. Otherwise, it does us no good to have a RB with elite speed, size, power, and elusiveness who gets tackled for a loss, because we can't block anyone. Or who can't get on the field, because we can't stop the run. OR who goes out for a swing pass and has the ball thrown five feet over his head.

[htismaqe]

What are they built around?

In 2001, the Ravens ran the ball 459 times and threw the ball 544 times. The exact opposite of the 2010 Chiefs, and that was without Trent Richardson.

The 49ers still only ran the ball about 50 more times than they threw it.

[DeezNutz]

I think the problem with this discussion is that it is predicated on two assumptions:

1. Trent Richardson is, in fact, going to be the best player available at #11.
2. Having the best running back in the draft is more valuable than having the second best offensive tackle.

This whole situation reeks of Larry Johnson.

- A probowl running back, supremely talented. Scoring threat from everywhere. Coming off a major injury.
- Clear needs elsewhere.
- Drafting another running back with a different skill set (bruiser vs elusive)

I know what people will say: "You rarely find this combination of size, speed, power, and elusiveness!" Fine. But are those skills that genuinely benefit our team more than, say, giving our QB an extra second or two in pass protection?

Personally, if I had the choice between having any combination of Priest, LJ, Jamaal, and Trent Richardson OR having our offensive line with Roaf, Waters, Wiegmann, Shields, and Tait...I'm taking the offensive line every time. An elite offensive line opens running lanes, gives receivers time to get open, and often neutralizes the other team's best defenders (pass rushers, CB who can't cover for over 5 seconds).

I'm sure Richardson is talented, and is going to make some team very happy. Great. We have other needs right now. Right tackle, ILB, CB (carr?), WR (bowe?), nose tackle, and QUARTERBACK are bigger needs than a second running back.

If we fill some or most of those needs in free agency, then fine - draft Richardson. Otherwise, it does us no good to have a RB with elite speed, size, power, and elusiveness who gets tackled for a loss, because we can't block anyone. Or who can't get on the field, because we can't stop the run. OR who goes out for a swing pass and has the ball thrown five feet over his head.

Welcome to CP, n00b. The above suggests that you'll be a valuable poster. Alas, I'll wait for hindsight to level the odds, though.

That said, I would encourage us to try to provide our QB with less time, not more. Unfortunately, it's really the only way to increase the "competition" at the position.

[htismaqe]

Welcome to CP, n00b. The above suggests that you'll be a valuable poster. Alas, I'll wait for hindsight to level the odds, though.

That said, I would encourage us to try to provide our QB with less time, not more. Unfortunately, it's really the only way to increase the "competition" at the position.

By the same token, we could take Richardson and make sure he never has to drop back at all. Then he can be the "perfect" QB and we can keep him forever.