Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488705)

Speaking of things that don't matter, do you think New Orleans cares why Drew Brees was moved? Would we have cared why Montana was moved if he'd won one more game in 93? Hell, do we care why he was moved anyway?

All you're doing is pointing out that there are top notch QBs who come available at the end of their careers because some teams act proactively to replace them before they drop off the cliff. The Minnesota version of Brett Favre is another example, although he fell just short of getting them to the big game.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488710)

They hit on both of those trades. I don't think there's any reason to regret either one of them. You can't just assume that every first round QB you draft is going to become a Peyton Manning (or even an Eli). If the Chiefs could trade their first round pick every 3 or 4 years for a QB who was as effective as the aging Joe Montana at the top end or Trent Green in his prime at the bottom end, I'd take that.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488713)

How long is the Raiders window going to be locked down and shuttered as a result of the JaMarcus Russell pick? Come on, man, don't give me this every 1st Round pick is going to be a Peyton Manning BS. That kind of extreme best case evaluation is shoddy analysis.

I'd bet that the Ryan/Flacco/Sanchez windows won't be open nearly as long as the Manning window will end up being. I'm not sure whether they even count as being opened up yet.

Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 6488858)

right. okay. well, in that case, I'd say that Brodie Croyle was a reasonable risk. first round talent, injury problems. MAYBE he could stay healthy....

nope...and so you have backup that's got more talent than your starter, but you can't trust him with the position because he won't last three games. Not that I think he's MANNING, I just think that Cassel's....well, less talented in any measurable way.

but I wouldn't rather have Jamarcus Russell. I would much rather have Matt Ryan. I would like to have Sanchez, although I worry that we'd have ruined him before he had a chance to grow into his potential.

So I don't buy the draft a QB number 1 if you want to win the big one argument. There are SO many more variables at play than WHERE you get a good QB. There can be no argument, however, that you need a GOOD QB. Why we can't just agree on that and move on, I have no idea.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 6491289)

On a team that is as devoid of talent, as the Chiefs are, why not take Sanchez and develop him using a similar approach that the Titans did isn developing McNair.

If you believe he has franchise QB potential, draft him, let him sit on the bench for a year or two, getting him late game snaps here and there while building the base around him.

That was how I wanted to approach it.

Originally Posted by Coogs (Post 6491322)

I'd like to see this once in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 6491278)

I would rather have drafted Drew Brees than trade for Trent Green.

The QB class in '93 was pathetic, so trading for Montana was a fair investment, but they should have also persued Steve Buerlein in free agency to back him up and learn from him, because Montana was fragile at that point in his career and it was inevitable that he would be injured at some point.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6491338)

Drew Brees wouldn't have been able to make up for the defensive failures of the Trent Green era Chiefs. He wouldn't have forced Indianapolis to punt the ball. And whether the Chiefs would have been patient enough through Brees' growing pains in a way that San Diego was not is really questionable.

Given the way that Brees has played the last few years, I clearly can't say that you'd have been wrong to make that choice, but I still think the Trent Green acquisition was a win for the Chiefs. And this is from someone who was underwhelmed by it, to say the least, at the time.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 6491284)

The window for Flacco should really begin to open next season, assuming he is the QB many think he is, and that window would be open for the nest 12 to 15 years.

The window for Sanchise should open in the '11 season, and should be open for 12 to 15 years.

Averaged out, the window for a first round QB that your team selects and develops is about 13.5 years, and we got, at best, 8 years for two first round picks, essentially 19 years less than two first round picks should give us.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 6491357)

Drew Brees is still playing, and playing at a high level.

He is doing this, in spite of the fact that the Chragers, both AJ Smith and Marty, were ready to give up on him.

He worked his ass off to improve, after figuring out what he needed to work on after his second year.

Meanwhile, Trent Green is retired, and really started to decline after the 2005 season.

Brees, on the other hand is just in the middle of his prime, and has 5 years or more left in him.

First round pick for 5 years.
First round pick for 15 years.

One of these is a smarter investment of resourses.

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6491338)

Drew Brees wouldn't have been able to make up for the defensive failures of the Trent Green era Chiefs. He wouldn't have forced Indianapolis to punt the ball. And whether the Chiefs would have been patient enough through Brees' growing pains in a way that San Diego was not is really questionable.

Given the way that Brees has played the last few years, I clearly can't say that you'd have been wrong to make that choice, but I still think the Trent Green acquisition was a win for the Chiefs. And this is from someone who was underwhelmed by it, to say the least, at the time.