If it's Peyton Manning or Dan Marino, then of course you take him. But Sanchez only started 1 year. How is his track record better than Matt Leinart's and look how well Leinart has done. Troy Aikman has rings, but he also had a hell of a good defense. How many super bowls did Dan Marino win? They had Dan Marino for a decade and a half and never won one because they never had a killer defense. We can argue all we want, there are tons of examples of busts from all positions with better players taken later. I think the real question is of priorities. Do you want to build offense or defense? Defense wins championships, so I want some defense. And if we can't do great on defense, then go Offensive line. Peyton Manning finally won a super bowl once they got the Defense going really well. The giants beat the patriots with Eli Manning managing games, and with a solid running game. There are not a lot of examples of teams winning because of a great passing game and a mediocre defense compared to great defenses and a mediocre passing game.

Now is the perfect time to get the QB. You never know when you will be in the top 5 again to select one. We have the LT, we have the WR, get the QB. A defense can be built easier than an offense, next year is loaded with defense prospects. Its the perfect time, I dont know what is so ****ing hard to understand for you dipshits.

Leinart was drafted for a different offense. Dennis Green ran the WCO, which is perfectly suited for Leinart. Haley runs a "long-ball" offense. Leinart will be a successful NFL QB. Keep in mind, he's playing behind a likely Hall of Famer. He's not playing behind Jon Kitna.

Wrong.

Troy Aikman is one of the most accurate passers in NFL AND he's a Hall of Famer. How many of their defensive players that you claim are so great are in the Hall? Aikman, Irvin and Smith are in the Hall and were part of an elite offense.


Wrong.

Dan Marino, once again, is in the Hall of Fame. The reason that Marino never won a Super Bowl is simple. First, he faced Joe Montana and the loaded SF 49ers in 1984. Secondly, they could never find a running back (therefore a running game) to compliment their passing game. Hence, no Super Bowl. Their defenses were at times very good to great.


NEVER pass on the best available athlete out of "fear". That's just plain stupid, especially when there's a possible Franchise Quarterback sitting there when you choose.


Wrong.

The Chiefs have THE MOST talent-depleted roster in the NFL. Outside of Left Tackle, the Chiefs should take the best available athlete with the third overall pick. PERIOD.

Wrong.

If the Chiefs chose another Left Tackle, they'd have over $75 million dollars wrapped up in the Left Tackle position. That's complete lunacy.


Wrong.

The Colts won their Championship due to Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Joseph Addai and Marvin Harrison. Their defense stunk but played well enough for them not to lose. Their defense still stinks, which is why they went out of the playoffs in round one.

The Giants beat the Patriots because Eli Manning (their FRANCHISE QB) played an absolutely flawless game. Period. The Patriots win that game 8 times out of 10. The Giants had a great defense that year but that couldn't save them in 2008 because the offense, mainly Manning, reverted.

Great post. :clap:

Again, fast with the insults. There is very little certainty in things like this. Pretending to have all the answers is a clear sign that you don't fully grasp the situation.

Look at super bowl record.

Last year, Eli Manning won, was a top pick, except that the Defense was clearly the best part of the giants, they stopped the patriots, and Eli was a game manager. And don't forget that the Giants had run Kurt Warner out of town in favor of Manning. Had they really given Warner a chance, do you think they still could have won the super bowl? I do. They got him easily in free agency.

Two years ago Peyton and the Colts won the super bowl, here's a good example of a #1 pick paying off.

Then the Steelers, Ben was picked late in the first round, also bumps up the drafting QB idea, though again, Ben was a game manager, completed only 9 passes in the super bowl, they ran the ball well and have a great defense. I'd much rather pick Troy Polamalu than Ben Roethlisberger.

Then we have 2 Tom Brady Patriots, picked up in the 7th round. The patriots until last season were a run first, pass second, play great defense kind of a team, and they won 3 super bowls, including the upset of the high flying rams with an amazing offense.

Between there we have the Brad Johnson led Buccaneers with a great defense, John Lynch, Warren Sapp, Simeon Rice, Derrick Brooks, etc.

Then in 2000 you have the Trent Dilfer led Ravens with an amazing defense.

in 99 you have the Rams amazing offense winning a super bowl, though with undrafted Kurt Warner. People forget how good their defense was too, it wasnt dismal, it was till middle of the pack, and they had, by the way, Orlando Pace at LT

in 98 and 97 you have the John Elway Broncos winning back to back, however, you'll see that they did so with solid running game and solid defense, something the broncos lacked earlier in Elway's career.

in 96 you have the Favre led Packers, Brett was a 2nd round pick and then traded. The packers had a solid defense including Reggie White.

If you go back farther you get lots of Cowboys and 49ers, who had top QB's but also had great Defenses and ran the ball really well.

Sure a great QB helps, but is only a piece of the puzzle. There are many many examples of teams with solid running games and great defenses that do very well without a great qb, but a team with a great qb and a mediocre defense doesn't have a great track record.

Look at the Redskins of the 80's, They won 3 super bowls with different QBs, the Giants won 2 super bowls with 2 different qbs.

The consistent element of great teams are great defenses and solid running games. The great quarterback is much less of a necessity.

Look at the chiefs of the 90's, yeah they didn't win much in the postseason, I'll give you that, but that had a solid defense, they pounded the run and they had the best winning percentage of anyone in the 90's. Look at the Steelers over the past 15 years. A great defense, a solid running game, and a series of game managing quarterbacks and they've gone to 3 super bowls.

I'm looking at this track record and deciding that I'd rather focus on the defense than the offense, and especially the quarterback.

Do you really think the giants won the super bowl last year because of Eli Manning? They faced the BEST offense of all time and held them to 14 points. The Patriots defense wasn't that great that year, their offense just blew people away.

And The colts won the year before because they got their defense turned around. That super bowl was played in the rain and they ran the ball most of the game. They won because they played good defense and didnt' turn the ball over. Saying they won because of Manning Addai Harrison and Wayne is silly. Bob Sanders needs to be listed much higher. Addai Sanders MAnning....

Get the QB first, then build the defense. All the dyntasy teams got the QB in their first year - Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots. Get Stafford or Sanchez and then build the rest of the team. Draft defense with next 6 picks, I could care less how they do it. A franchise QB is what this team needs the most, more than anything else. We are in position to do it.

Yeah, because as we all know, without Bob Sanders, the Bears would have put up 40.

:rolleyes:

Colts defense sure did beat some high powered offenses during that run - Chiefs, Ravens and Bears.

How's this for a stat:

The quarterback who leads the league in passing yards in the regular season has never ever won the super bowl in the same season. Not Once. How about Passing Defense or Rushing defense or rushing offense? plenty of examples.

You cite me an example of a team with a quarterback drafted high that carried a team to super bowl victory without an awesome defense or solid running game. There are plenty of Trent Dilfers and Brad Johnsons available in free agency that can manage an offense and hand the ball off and win you super bowls. Marino never did that. It takes a complete team to win a super bowl, and a complete team doesnt necessarily mean a top quarterback, just someone who is smart and doesn't turn the ball over too much. They can be found in free agency, in the later rounds, off the bench, but great defenses and great running games are more often built on years of drafting a large pool of talented players.

and you're forgetting the Tom Brady led Patriots. I'm not saying we should pass if Peyton Manning is on the board, but I haven't been real convinced by Mark Sanchez.

Without Sanders the Colts never get to that super bowl, just look at how they did when sanders was hurt, or look at them early this year when Jeff Saturday was hurt.

Oh and the fact that the Colts faced the "high powered" Chiefs Ravens Bears and Patriots in the playoffs doesn't make you wonder about putting QB above defense and running the ball? The chiefs completely lucked in at 9-7, but did so running the ball mercilessly, and the ravens, bears and patriots are built on defense and the run. I would take a great defense over a great offense any day.

We have a true fan, where is Can when you need him.

oh and I'm forgetting Dwight Freeeny of the colts. Consistently winning teams almost always have great pass rushers. T

And guess what those teams get the QB first then they build their defense. Wow what a concept.

yeah like the 2000 ravens and 2002 buccaneers

Funny those teams never made it back to the Super Bowl.

Yay! Let's build a great defense and hope that an aging, free agent veteran can take the Chiefs to the Super Bowl! Woo-hoo!!

Wake up, Son: The 90's are over.

Yep been there done that. But if you draft a QB in the 1st round you cant build a great defense, even though the Cowboys, Patriots, Steelers, Giants and others have proven that wrong.

No, but they were both contenders for quite some time. The Ravens were back in the title game this year.

You're saying that winning one super bowl is insignificant?

The ravens were 10-6, 7-9, 10-6, 9-7, 6-10, 13-3, 5-11, 11-5 since then, that's with Elvis Grbac Kyle Boller (a first round bust) and Joe Flacco ( a late first round pick) They were in the title game this year, but because their defense was unstoppable and Flacco didn't make many mistakes. He didn't light up the scoreboards, they ran the ball well and depended on the defense to force lots of turnovers. They picked off pennington in one playoff game almost as many times as he threw picks all season.

And the buccaneers had been successful for years prior to their super bowl. The core defensive players had aged and many left for lucrative contracts elsewhere. from 97 to 01, under Tony Dungy and led by the quarterbacking corps of Trent Dilfer, Shaun King, and Brad Johnson, they went 10-6 8-8 11-5 10-6 9-7 and then Dungy was canned cause they didn't think he could get it done in the playoffs, brought in Gruden and went 12-4 and won the super bowl. But by then the aging defensive guys weren't the same as they used to be, what followed was a decline in the defense and all sorts of blunders in the handling of the team by Gruden who is an "offensive guru" QB coach kind of guy. Also they had given up first round picks to get gruden and had significant salary cap issues.

JFC.

AFTER they moved up in the first round and did what?

Oh yeah, drafted what they think is a Franchise QB.

NINE YEARS LATER.

As to the rest of your post, JFC. What a bunch of hogwash.

I'm not saying you can't get a great defense after you get a quarterback in the top 5. What I'm saying is this:

A great defense and solid running game will make for a consistently successful team. A great quarterback is not necessary to win. Sure it would be nice to have a peyton manning, but those guys are very rare. So if Sanchez is a peyton manning, then by all means take him, but the list of qb busts in the first round is quite long. The 90's chiefs were the winningest team of the 90's. Yes they didn't win many playoff games, but they were very close to being super bowl caliber several years, but we never quite got everything put together right. Those teams were based on defense and running the ball. We brought in an old Montana and Allen and we were a game away from the super bowl. Free agent veterans can fill big holes like Quarterback if the rest of the team is solid. The problem with the 90's was carl peterson. Had we been picking quarterbacks in later rounds and had found a gem in there, we might very well have a ring or two, but he never picked qbs after his first few years when they didn't pan out. for every peyton manning there's three Todd Blackledges.

All I'm saying is that if you look at the track records teams with great defenses are consistent winners, and teams with great quarterbacks aren't quite so much.

Even if you land a great QB it still might not do much. Look at Cincinatti. A few years ago it seemed Palmer was the next Manning, and look how terrible they've been since then. They don't have a defense.

How much better off woud Tennesse be if they hadn't picked Vince "I thought about retiring my rookie season" Young. If your quartback draft pick busts, it sets a team back a long time. What if they had picked someone else, maybe that player isn't a hall of famer, but a defensive pick or an offensive line pick, anything other than QB and that player can still contribute even if they aren't fantastic.

How about the Giants, they had Kurt Warner, who we see can still play. What if they had picked Robert Gallery or Larry Fitzgerald instead?

2002 draft. Texans take David Carr 1st, Julius Peppers goes 2nd, and then The Lions take Joey Harrington third. Quentin Jammer, Roy Williams (the safety), John Henderson, Dwight Freeney, and Albert Haynesworth are on the board. You really telling me that the texans and Lions are better off picking Qbs to put behind their terrible offensive lines than they are tacking any of those impact defensive players that are still great. What would it look like in Houston if they had Dwight Freeney back in 2002 and had just picked up a veteran free agent QB to manage games for a while?

Did you watch any of the Raven's playoff games? Their defense just ran people over. Quarterbacks were running for their lives, heave-hoing lame ducks and they couldnt run the ball at all. Their offense managed the clock, made few mistakes, managed the game.

Remember when Kyle Boller was the first round pick to save the franchise? How'd that work out? I would take Ed Reed before Joe Flacco any day.


Oh and they weren't starting fresh. Yeah they didn't have a great season last year, but they have had one of the most consistently great defenses of the past decade. bettered by maybe only pittsburgh.

Titans would be in the Super Bowl if they had drafted Cutler like Fisher wanted. You are underminded the QB position which is the most important by far. Your little theory of anybody can lead a QB to a Super Bowl is bullshit for the most part. 57% of the Super Bowls have been won by 1st round QB's. Throw Brady & Montana into that group and its around 70%. Not to mention out of those non-first rounders Stabuch is included and he would have been a first if he didnt have to go to Vietnam. If you want to be the 90's Chiefs go ahead, I would rather be the 90's Cowboys. Which is the team that alot of us want to build. Strong defense with a playmaking offense. Not a game managed one.

You guys are chasing your tails. I think you both are actually in agreement, however one of you PREFERS a QB THIS YEAR via the draft and it seems it must be our 1st round pick(Sanchez,Stafford or Bust) and the other prefers one at a later time or by other means, besides the draft. I think you both make some valid points, but for God's sake let's have a little more fun and alot less bitchin'.

We might be making a move for Cassell AND still keeping our 1st rounder this year.

Wait....why are you throwing montana in there? He was a third round pick? and Brady? he was a seventh round pick!

I'm totally with you on getting a great QB, I just think that if you pick one in the top 3 and he doesn't become Peyton Manning then you have screwed yourself with a huge contract on a guy who may not even play much. I just think of every single draft choice as a gamble. I think there are defensive players and offensive line type guys who are much better bets to be successsful in the nfl than the QB choices are. So for my money, take sure fire playmakers early, and pick some QBs in the later rounds. Montana was a 3rd round choice, Brady was a seventh. They were taking guys that were better bets and then taking a risk on quarterbacks later on. You pick a QB in the seventh round every season and you're bound to get a decent one and you'll never get burned with a fifty million dollar contract. Look at Arizona with all the money they have tied up with Leinart while Warner takes them to the Super Bowl. And Tennesse in the Super Bowl if they chose Cutler instead? Well, you might be right, but look how much they lost on picking Young, the guys riding the bench and pulling in a huge salary. They could have had an impact player in addition to the Kerry Collins managed running attack. Put in Cutler and maybe that's a play making offense. But if Tennesee picks D'Brickashaw Ferguson or A.J. Hawk, I think they are definitely a better team than they were this year. Quarterback is a very high risk pick, if he doesn't start then he's practically a waste, other positions aren't like that.

So you are scared of a QB busting. Wow read up:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...51#post5306951

I think Pioli is thinking of going the Cassell route, freeing up the 1st rounder for another position.

Yeah you're right. It's a chicken or the egg kind of thing. Does the quarterback make the great team or does the great team make the quarterback? It can work both ways. My point is that Tyler Thigpen is an okay quarterback, maybe not for long, maybe it was just a fluke, but he did pretty well for a guy who rarely took snaps in practice and was thrust in as the 3rd qb and we should give him a shot. You draft sanchez and he might not beat thigpen as the starter. And even if he does and thigpen and croyle are sitting, we have some talent that is wasted. You pick a pass rusher and he doesnt become reggie white you can still use him some of the time, it's not a total bust.

Personally I want to see an NFL team try a quarterback by committee approach. Alternate series. When a QB goes down and you put in a backup who never plays in games you don't know what you have and there's a steep learning curve, if you alternate then both guys are experienced, both guys build confidence, and if one goes down then you just use the other full time. Plus it makes it that much harder to game plan against. It wasn't long ago that they said running back by committe can't work, but now it's the norm.

I'm probably going to catch hell for saying this but Imagine a quarterback duo of Thigpen and Tebow. The reason the running quarterback hasn't succeeded that well at the NFL level is because of injuries, but if you have two, then that risk is greatly reduced. Just saying, somebody oughta try it. Even if it fails it could be fun to watch.

I am a diehard chiefs fan, and I would much rather see them winning consistently behind a great defense than experiencing the ups and downs of the great offense. Those vermeil teams were fun to watch on offense, but boy was it frustrating on defense. Schottenheimer teams were fun to watch on defense, but boy was it frustrating on offense. But if i had a choice, I would pick the schottenheimer teams because with that defense all we needed was a decent offense to get us to 13-3, add a playmaker or two and we could have won super bowls. Under Vermeil that offense was great, but I don't think an extra player or two on defense would have gotten us a ring. That's all I'm saying.

I like alot of what you had to say, so I'll just point out that I don't like the Tebow idea in the least just to get that out of the way.

I'm also hopeful that, by watching the way the Patriots teams operated, that we can emulate them, by not juss being good at only one particular facet of the game. The Pats of recent years, are always well prepared and disciplined in all three phases of the game. It won't happen over night, but I can see Pioli improving the team fairly quickly and us being balanced in our approach.

I doubt 7 out of 33 is much better than simply the law of averages would give you.

If the record was like 15 of 33 top 5 picked qbs won a superbowl than you have some good statistical backup, but 7 out of 33 doesn't go much above the background noise.

You've also thought that Cowher AND Shanahan would be coaching the Chiefs.

No personal offense whatsoever but I think you're off on this one, too.

Anything you say on this topic moving forward is INVALID.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I just don't know how to respond.

Help?

He is what Mr. Talking Can refers to as a true fan.

Of course, those 7 went on to the Super Bowl, right?

why

First off, Champ, Brady was a 6th.

Are you seriously going to suggest that the Chiefs or any other team are routinely going to find HALL OF FAME QUARTERBACKS in the third and sixth round?

Huh?????????????????????

One of my biggest concerns is this: A great offensive line can make most quarterbacks look great. A terrible offensive line can make most quarterbacks look terrible.

So If you pick an amazing quarterback, a peyton manning or a dan marino, then sure, maybe he can overcome shortcomings in other places, but if you pick a Ben Roethlisberger, or a Trent Green or most mortal quarterbacks and put them behind a bad line you get a bad quarterback. So I would rather we shore up the line, shore up most of the team before we get a quarterback.

Herm's first year, when the offensive line was still as good as it was under vermeil, before guys started retiring, we made the playoffs despite losing trent green for most of the season. Damon Huard filled in and his stats looked like this
148-244 60.7 1878 yards 7.7yds/pass 11 td 1 int 98.0 rating

He was a pro bowl caliber QB because we ran the ball so well and had protection. Then in 07 and 08 we get the offensive line retirements and then huard looks like this
206-332 62.0 2257 6.8 11td 13int 76.8

and then in 08 he couldn't stay healthy and neither could Croyle because we couldn't protect them. You draft Peyton Manning and put him back there and we still don't have a lot of success, maybe he can overcome some of this, but he's not going to be the hall of famer he is without a good line. So I say invest in the big guys up front on both sides of the ball and they make everyone else look better. Far too often we give credit to running backs quarterbacks wide receivers and cornerbacks and safeties and linebackers for the stuff that linemen do.

You can easily shore up the line by drafting in the 3rd/4th round and signing a free agent or two.

Look at super bowl history, or look at the history of teams that are consistently winning. Hall of fame quarterbacks arent a requirement to win super bowls. They sure help, but winning is built on defense and offensive lines. You put Peyton Manning on a team without a defense or offensive line and you don't have much at all.

And sorry I said seventh when it was sixth. Huge difference. The point was he was lumping in 3 super bowl victories to the draft qbs in the top 5 strategy because it was Brady who was very much not a top pick.

You get a great offensive and defensive line and you'll make most any QB and defensive backfield look great.

GFY

You're a clueless, 90's automaton that would feel better if the Chiefs took a guard to minimize the pain that would ensue if drafted a QB that failed.

Nice, closed minded opinion.

I'll cherish it the next time I wipe my ass.

Seriously guys, think about this season. Had we had Tom Brady himself at QB, would we have been great? No. I don't think so. We do better, sure, but our defense couldn't stop anybody, couldn't pressure QBs worse than any team in history, and couldn't run the ball worth a damn. You put Brady back there and maybe we're 7-9, maybe we're even 8-8 and win this terrible division, but we sure as hell don't go anywhere in the playoffs.

I'd like to know what premier teams didn't have great QB's I'd really love to know, 1 year and out teams don't count...

Also let me quickly point you to some facts..the Chiefs drafted their LT in the 1st round last year yes? Ok how many teams have more than 1 1st round pick on the line, the answer is not many, some have none or one going for more than that is frankly overkill. The Pats have 1..the last pick of the 1st, the Giants have none and I can go on and on, so that immediately puts OT out of the discussion.

DE would be a fine argument DE's are very valuable I think the 2nd most after QB, but none of the guys in this draft are worth top 5 picks, you may not like Sanchez and you may think he's risky but I consider Brian Orakpo even more risky..people bring up Leinart just bring up the draft history of Texas under Mack Brown it's not pretty.

And for the record Tyler Thigpen is not good, they ran a gimmick offense for him and he is still horribly inaccurate gets worse as games progress, the only reason people like him around here is he strokes their Rich Gannon fancy which is just absurd.

I don't believe I'm being closed minded. If you look you'll notice I'm not telling anyong to "GFY" or calling anyone else any names. I'm trying to express an opinion in opposition of your opinion. Get over it. I'm just looking at the facts that I see and hoping we build a great defense and an offensive line that could make Tyler Thigpen or Bruce Gradkowski or Quinn Gray look great.

Just look at Pioli and the Pats. Brady in the sixth round, meanwhile they are drafting Richard Seymour in the top 10. That's how you win championships.

Look at the Lions picking Joey Harrington and how that set the franchise back . A bust at QB not only doesnt contribute to a team at all, can't play a secondary role, but takes up probably 60-70 million dollars in salary space over the next five years while doing so.

The upside is huge if we get a Manning, but I think you have to look at the Ryan Leafs and know for damn sure you're getting a great QB before you pull the trigger.

If we can't pressure the opposing QB we have zero chance at going anywhere, regardless of how good our offense is.

As far as I can tell, the quarterback position is more about the intangibles, the hard work, the preparation than it is about physical ability. Chad Pennington is THE most accurate QB in NFL history despite having a noodle arm. The guy is smart and works hard and gets the job done. This is true of most nfl positions, but moreso about quarterback. A smart defensive lineman who isn't big enough isn't worth much, A smart quarterback with a weak arm isn't going to light up the combine but might manage you to a few super bowl wins if you can protect him and run the ball.

Hopefully your QB is not taking up 60-70 mil. per year in cap space. :p

I really don't know how hard it is to understand that there is no need to draft another offensive lineman with a top 5 pick and none of the DE's are good enough to warrant the picks...

Just saying: Stacey Andrews + Some guard in the mid rounds and we are set at the offensive line for years to come.

So because some teams can succeed by finding lineman outside of the first round it rules out drafting an offensive tackle? K. What if Orlando Pace is available, or Jonathan Ogden, or Willie Roaf. They went 1st 4th and 8th overall and were anchors to great offenses for years and years. You think Trent green goes to so many pro bowls without Willie Roaf at LT?

Also Branden Albert wasn't an LT, we moved him to left tackle.

I think you take the best available player, I just don't think it's Sanchez. You know how great offensive lines can make average QBs look great. Yeah, well USC has an immense talent advantage across the board, and Sanchez only started for 1 season. Put him on Stanford and see how well he does. I think Aaron Curry is the best available player at the 3 spot. I don't care what the schemes are, the guy can flat out make plays

Thats over the life of the contract, which is what's expected that Stafford is going to get with the 1st overall pick.

You really don't know what positional value is do you.....

Albert was drafted as a tackle every team in the league had him on the board as a OT, so lets not make that argument. He's the Chiefs LT there is no reason to draft another one.

If the Chiefs take Aaron Curry with the 3rd pick I'm going to say they made a complete pick out of fear because his bust factor is low but even if he becomes an awesome player it won't mean much because there will be LB's taken rounds later that do fine jobs.

I really wish I didn't have to see people want to strive to be the 90s Chiefs, we saw it again this year it was named the Titans how'd it work out?

Albert was definitely projecting to LT. A very specific set of circumstances resulted in him playing LG at the collegiate level. Additionally, he is developing wonderfully. If you can solve the offensive line later in the draft or through free agency, why not do that and take advantage of the opportunity to strike at a franchise QB? Especially when there are no DEs worth a top 5 pick.

Too bad the lions are going to draft a tackle (and they should.) Also, now is financially speaking an excellent time for KC to draft a QB. A deflationary environment should result in lower contract dollars plus we have tons of cap room.

In my opinion there is literally only 2 or 3 players the Chiefs can realistically take.

I'm just saying. Say we pass on Aaron Curry, go on with Rocky Boiman and Donnie Edwards, and then see what we think of Curry in five or ten years when Sanchez is a bust and we still have a bad defense, meanwhile Cleveland has Curry making plays all over the field. I'm not saying that's for sure what would happen, but it seems pretty likely to me.

If you want to talk about what happened this year. The Titans are the chiefs? They used a top 5 pick on VY a few years ago which is paying them ZERO dividends right now. The guy is riding the bench and taking up a lot of cap space.

The Cardinals are in the Super bowl with a similar situation. A top 10 draft pick QB riding the bench, taking up cap space while a veteran Free agent is leading them to greatness.

The Steelers are in the super bowl again. The Steelers are the epitome of Defense wins championships. Yeah they drafted Roethlisberger in the early part of the first round, but they were an established team with a great defense already. And They won the super bowl in his second season with him completing 9 passes total in the super bowl. The guy has gotten better, but do you think that if Tommy Maddox had still been their QB they couldn't have won the super bowl?

So a Defensive team with a great running game, and a team with a veteran free agent QB are in the super bowl.

If the 90's chiefs are like any of these teams its the steelers. We had a solid defense year after year and a good running game, we just never had quite enough pieces to make it work well enough. WE add veteran Joe Montana who San Fran didn't want anymore and we nearly go to a super bowl. Why are you attacking me as if I'm a moron, I believe we are both making fair points.

I agree they should draft an OT, they put any QB back there and he'll look terrible. Draft O line and sign a QB. But I expect the lions to be the lions and pick a qb after they picked up Gunther to run their D.

So Sanchez, Stafford and who?

A coverage linebacker is in no way, shape or form worth a top 5 pick. I'm sorry. They cannot impact enough games in meaningful ways.

Curry is a great tackler who is fast and has good hands. He's a ball hawk, a turnover making kind of guy. Maybe he isnt' a great run stuffer, but I think if you look at the depth the chiefs have, LB is our definitely worst area.

In his junior year he took 3 picks back for TDs an NCAA record for LBs. That isn't game changing?

Oh god.......100 million dollars of OT is just not a good idea. It's overkill major overkill.

Aaron Curry is not a rush backer, if he was I might have a different view of him, he's a prototypical strongside 4-3 guy which means..he'll cover TE's and make some nice plays in the run game I don't see him as a game changer.

See this is the kind of thing I'm talking about, it's the fear, Curry has a really high floor the odds of him being a total bum are pretty low, so that's how you want to draft. Carls gotten it in peoples heads now that if the guy isn't a total shitstick then it wasn't a bad pick since he made so many horrid ones.

You fire on that QB you know why.....QB is far and away the most valuable position in the league, If you took Keith Bulluck off the Titans and gave them a legit QB instead, they'd be better off.

Once again there are at most 4 players the Chiefs can justify drafting this year and none of them are offensive lineman because they just took their LT last year, what is with this obsession you don't need 5 1st round offensive lineman hell you don't even need 1.

BJ Raji if you go to the 3-4 imo.

Yea it's also a position teams devalue and consider not nearly as important...right now LB around the league is the most devalued defensive position.

Tell me who the Colts and Eagles starting LB's are...exactly.

And QBs routinely throw for 30 tds a year. Perspective is amazing.

Those 2, Raji if they go 3-4 can be justified and Malcolm Jenkins can be justified as taking the best player on the board at a valuable position, that's it after those I don't think they can really justify another player.

I think DE, DT, and OT are the most valuable positions in the league. When the great O-line is in place then guys like Damon Huard and Matt Hasselback can be pro-bowlers. I think they are the most valuable because they make everyone else look better. A great DT can kill the other teams run game. A great DE can kill the passing game. A great OT can pave the way for 1000 yard rusher after 1000 yard rusher. A great QB that you can't protect can't do a lot. A great Qb without a defense can put up points but not many playoff wins.

Ah so you don't value QB's, that's brilliant.

I want you to show me what team has used more than 1, 1st round pick on it's OL...really show me.

I am a supporter of drafting Dlineman but not when the guys aren't worthy of the picks because they aren't the caliber of prospect worthy of the pick.

QB, DE, LT, CB, DT, WR that's the value chart in my opinion.

Unless we switch to a 3-4, there isnt a defensive player in this years draft you can justify taking at 3. And there isn't any justification to spend a 3 to fix our oline when it can easily be done in FA and a midround draft choice.

Take a great team with a solid defense and a great offensive line. Take away their Perennial Pro Bowler QB, put in a backup who hasnt started since high school and what do you get?

Matt Cassell fills in for Brady and shows you what I'm talking about. They go 11-5, and only miss the playoffs because the playoff structure is flawed. Most years they get in and I'm not betting against Belicheck in the playoffs. Do you really think Cassell would be great if he were a chief? So the difference between Brady and Cassel was 16-0 to 11-5. I don't think anyone expected them to repeat 16-0 if tom brady was there, maybe 13-3 or 14-2, so downgrading to cassell cost them all of 2 or 3 wins. And you're telling me that QB is the most valuable position. When you can run the ball, protect the QB and play defense, you can make most QBs look good or great.

Exactly. If God's Gift to the defensive line was available in this year's draft, I'd be all for it. But he's not, unless you're talking about Michael Johnson's potential, in which case, please draft him in the second round.

Uh, New England's defense sucked and they hardly ran the ball.

I would throw safety up there with WR actually but, it's just blatantly obvious this guy listened to, to many Marty and Cowher smash mouth rants.

The OL thing is overkill I will in no way support the idea of using back to back 1st round picks on OT's especially both of them coming in the top 20 and this one being 3rd, if the Chiefs were picking like 28th, I'd have a different view of it.

End I'd support of a player warranted the pick, I'm a big fan of Everette Brown but he's not worth the pick.

So you start really narrowing this down into roughly a 3 or 4 player race.

LOL, well New england actually finished 6th in the league in rushing but the truth is people just look at Cassells stats they don't realize he has ****ing Randy Moss on his team, and Wes Welker the Pats lead the league in YAC yards this year..he also took more than double the sacks Brady did..

With Brady NE is winning the Superbowl, this year I have no doubt about it without him they're watching at home.

Remember when the Chiefs had Willie Roaf at LT and John Tait at RT. I know we didn't draft Roaf, but in 2003 we were 13-3 and had a first round bye with those two guys. I am sure there are more examples but that's off the top of my head.

There are so many examples of teams that can win consistently without HOF or top drafted QBs. They aren't as necessary to winning as Defense is. So I say you focus on making a great defense. You know the trend with TEs, theres so many good ones now, Gates, Winslow, Gonzalez. They have changed the position, you don't think a coverage LB isn't going to be helpful?

HEre's my positon chart:

DE, OT, DT, G/C, QB, LB, S, WR, CB, HB, TE, FB, K/P.

You get great big guys up front and it makes everyone else better.

NE's passing game set up the rushing game, not vice-versa, though. And its the principle of the matter.

Remind me of a team that didn't win a playoff game...and had 1 great regular season...great strategy.

You think of guards and centers way to highly...they are not the 2nd most important position on offense that is absurd.

Yeah Randy Moss helps a ton, but I think the Offensive line is the most important aspect of New Englands Success. They can keep their QB upright. And if they want to try to run the ball they can do it well. Their D wasn't great this year, but it was solid. Point is, Brady goes down and they plug in a guy who hasn't started since high school and they go 11-5, and you're telling me QB is the best way to spend a pick. I'm taking a guy to keep any QB upright, whoever it might be, or a guy to put the other teams QB on his butt.

Jesus. You have a messed up set of priorities, sir.
T1: OT, DE, QB, DT
T2: OLB, CB, WR, S
T3: G, C, ILB, HB, TE
T4: K, P, FB

He's basically telling you Will Shields is more important than John Elway, think of how absurd that is.

I think you guys both devalue secondary positions way to much though.

Yeah, didn't win a playoff game because they're defense sucked. Against the Peyton Manning Colts, the only playoff game ever without a punt because it was two teams who were focused far too much on their offense and couldn't stop anybody. I'd rather get a great DT like Haynesworth or a DE that can get to the QB than an OT, but still.

Funny, most sacks come from the outside. Yet you are talking about bumping out franchise LT to GUARD and justifying it by saying it helps keep our QB alive. I whole-heartedly disagree.

Would you trade Brian Waters for Matt Ryan right now, jeff?

I think we should just take an end to take one, we need another Tamba Hali out there, it'll be great.