If the Chiefs take Sanchez, I'd accept it. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, but it might give them certain options in the long run, although it does take a lot away from other areas of need that the team currently has. (And if the team were to take a qb, then I'd rather see it in the later rounds where it's not so much a question using such a high pick on what would initially be considered a pick of need for the Chiefs. If you want to get future trade material by developing a quarterback or a QBOTF, do it in the sixth round or so. Bulger, Brady, Cassel, etc., etc., etc.) It might also create a quarterback controversy that could have a negative impact on the team chemistry. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to draft Sanchez, but stranger things have happened.

It validates the need of a team that needed a quarterback and drafted up to make sure that they got a player who they felt was a guy who would fit in their system before another team drafted him. Basically, that could happen with any player. It depends on the team, and how they feel about the player. I don't think it necessarily has to do with the position. And I'm not saying that these peoples opinions are not without merit. I would have wanted the Chiefs to draft Sanchez with the three pick, but that was before the acquisition of Cassel. At this point, drafting Sanchez with that pick would be redundant and a waste seeing as how this team needs a lot more players, especially with that pick.

I can see the Chiefs trading out with another team and that team taking Curry at the #3 spot. It all depends on the team.

The problem around here is that some people seem to be completely and utterly locked into this draft position chart and this positional relevance in terms of the draft. It's like they have blinders on, and can't see anything other than the black and white aspects of it, and there is a hell of a lot more that goes on other than some guy looking at a draft value chart and "you only take this and that position with that pick" during a draft. There is a lot more grey area out there than some around here are willing to accept.

The Lions told him he will be successful!

I believe the same applies to you so what's your point. Pioli & Co. could also have Curry rated as the top player on their board for all you know.

PhilFree:arrow:

Yep.

He said he and teams know that he doesn't have the passrushing technique.

Hali also started for 3 years. Gaines Adams didn't start until halfway through his first year.

Only a ROLB or DE by your account.

Yeah a position that wasn't highly regarded by Pioli in NE and usually filled by Veterans is #1 on Pioli's list, thats a safe assumption.

It goes both ways, though.

Some here aren't willing to acknowledge that taking a LB like Curry at #3 overall would be almost UNPRECEDENTED. It just doesn't happen, and there's a reason for it.

Really? I said that?

Again, I think people have expectations of Curry that he's going to struggle to meet.

I'm not assuming anything.

PhilFree:arrow:

Of course, none of us have EVER said that the Chiefs WILL take Sanchez, or anybody else for that matter.

The same can't be said for the people on the Curry side of the argument.

Jesus, you whine like a bitch. All you seem to be able to do is bag on anyone who mentions taking Curry with the #3 pick and whenever pressed for your selection, all you can say is the most non-sensical of all picks - Sanchez.

I mean, seriously. You saying that you'd pick Sanchez, even after the Chiefs traded for Cassel, and then giving shit to people who want to draft Curry is the most hypocritical, dipshitiest thing I've seen on this topic.

Obviously they're gonna have expectations for anyone the Chiefs pick with the 3rd pick and who ever that player is he's gonna struggle to meet those expectations.


PhilFree:arrow: