ChiefsPlanet
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs CMU QB Dan LeFevour says he has had in-depth talks w/ Chiefs (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=222504)

Rasputin 01-28-2010 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6487671)
From 1980 - present:

The following QB's were selected in the Top 5 and started a SB for their original team. (Elway never played for the Colts, so I'm counting him, just like Eli Manning)

E. Manning
P. Manning
Aikman
Elway
McMahon
McNair
Bledsoe

No one from 6-10

From 11-15: Roethlisberger, Kelly, Eason

From 16-32: Marino
Some of those QBs have multiple SB & they all are HOF worthy. Even Eli has a shot at a HOF career. What's most impressive to me is there longevity for the same team. Teams continue to find pieces around them and let them grow with the team.

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 6487856)
Repost bitches
I have you on ignore, clearly.

Reerun_KC 01-28-2010 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6487867)
I have you on ignore, clearly.
ROFL @ Buehler445.....

Nobody likes you....

Buehler445 01-28-2010 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6487867)
I have you on ignore, clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reerun_KC (Post 6487876)
ROFL @ Buehler445.....

Nobody likes you....
Damn. Tough crowd today. I should log off.

DaneMcCloud 01-28-2010 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 6487772)
ooh, Dane called me a pussy on the interwebs!

This is the kind of crap that drove me away from here in the first place. For everyone else posting here that's not a complete douchebag-

First round QB's have a failure rate in the mid 80's. Non-first rounders in the mid 90's.

Interesting. Okay. I'd say that the impact on your franchise of whiffing on a 1st round QB might offset that extra 10% or so likelihood of success. Particularly if you're absolutely shitty everywhere else.

I'd say that the Chiefs SHOULD have drafted one in the first round nearly any year from 91-97. Why? Otherwise a fairly complete team. Good defense, good line to block for you. Good time to take a risk like that.

Right now? nope.

I'm not afraid of anything. I'm certainly not afraid of whiffing on a QB-I just don't see that as a smart move, especially when the rest of the team is so weak. See, Sanchez may indeed become a franchise QB-and I like him and think he will-but he ain't there yet. He was on a pretty short leash and the defense and running game carried that team. Sanchez on the Chiefs and we're still 4-12. Maybe worse. AND, we'd probably ruin the poor kid ala Joey Harrington.
And I'm certainly not afraid of Dane. Dane, if you'd like to continue this discussion in person, shoot me a p.m., bro! Or are you just an internet bully?
You're a ****ing dummy.

There's nothing further to discuss.

Adios, Muchacho.

Sweet Daddy Hate 01-28-2010 07:59 PM
Athletic, great build and not skinny like Eli and that ilk, great instincts, adjustments, reading of the field, a damned sweet arm, and wears #13(my birthday and number):

SOLD.

You get this kid. You get him yesterday.

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 6487884)
Damn. Tough crowd today. I should log off.
And then whom would I ignore?

patteeu 01-28-2010 08:35 PM
Which QB do you want with the fifth overall pick this year Dane?

I still agree with Chris Meck. I'd be the first to admit that I'm not a scout. If our college talent evaluators think there's a John Elway available when we draft then by all means take him. My unrefined sense of the situation is that there are no Elways or Mannings coming out this year.

Buehler445 01-28-2010 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488136)
And then whom would I ignore?
Fine. I'll stay on. Only because you owned me so thoroughly.

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488146)
Which QB do you want with the fifth overall pick this year Dane?

I still agree with Chris Meck. I'd be the first to admit that I'm not a scout. If our college talent evaluators think there's a John Elway available when we draft then by all means take him. My unrefined sense of the situation is that there are no Elways or Mannings coming out this year.
If the standard is Elway or Manning, we'll never draft a QB early. Using this measure, you would have passed on Matt Ryan 10 out of 10 times. Same with Rivers. Same with Roethlisberger.

And, of course at the time, some argued that Manning couldn't sniff Leaf, so hindsight always puts a different spin on it.

Here's the bottom line: we ****ed up last year. So let's not make that same mistake again.

Of course, this could be the Chiefs fan's mantra since '83. What a ****ing pussy ass franchise...

Sweet Daddy Hate 01-28-2010 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488296)
If the standard is Elway or Manning, we'll never draft a QB early. Using this measure, you would have passed on Matt Ryan 10 out of 10 times. Same with Rivers. Same with Roethlisberger.

And, of course at the time, some argued that Manning couldn't sniff Leaf, so hindsight always puts a different spin on it.

Here's the bottom line: we ****ed up last year. So let's not make that same mistake again.

Of course, this could be the Chiefs fan's mantra since '83. What a ****ing pussy ass franchise...
Claws is out! RRRROOOWWWW!LMAO

patteeu 01-28-2010 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488296)
If the standard is Elway or Manning, we'll never draft a QB early. Using this measure, you would have passed on Matt Ryan 10 out of 10 times. Same with Rivers. Same with Roethlisberger.

And, of course at the time, some argued that Manning couldn't sniff Leaf, so hindsight always puts a different spin on it.

Here's the bottom line: we ****ed up last year. So let's not make that same mistake again.

Of course, this could be the Chiefs fan's mantra since '83. What a ****ing pussy ass franchise...
If we're going to take a random gamble on a 1st round QB with an 18% chance of getting a Manning, Elway, or Rothlisberger and an 82% chance of getting a Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, or Rex Grossman, then I say we stick with Cassel for another year and take a gamble on a project QB with a cheaper pick (unless, of course, they think they might have something with Guittierez). If Cassel bombs this year then we move on next year and consider a 1st round QB.

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488419)
If we're going to take a random gamble on a 1st round QB with an 18% chance of getting a Manning, Elway, or Rothlisberger and an 82% chance of getting a Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, or Rex Grossman, then I say we stick with Cassel for another year and take a gamble on a project QB with a cheaper pick (unless, of course, they think they might have something with Guittierez). If Cassel bombs this year then we move on next year and consider a 1st round QB.
Cassel has already bombed. We've seen his basement, at least I'd think...

He'll improve. Weis is going to help hide some warts, and having an OC/QB coach will definitely pay dividends. The problem remains that Cassel is NOT the answer. His absolute upside is competent game manager.

Therefore, we MUST keep looking for a franchise-caliber QB.

Load up the Gabbert bandwagon, '11.

OnTheWarpath15 01-28-2010 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488448)
Cassel has already bombed. We've seen his basement, at least I'd think...
Don't get too cocky, 45th and 46th are still there for the taking.

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6488453)
Don't get too cocky, 45th and 46th are still there for the taking.
Is this where I boldly proclaim that he'll improve nearly 20 spots next year? Thus merely placing him among the bottom 1/3 of all starters instead of all eligible QBs?

I don't dislike Cassel, necessarily, but I absolutely ****ing hate everything he represents.

Mecca 01-28-2010 10:33 PM
That kind of thinking of "OMG he might bust" is why this team hasn't drafted a 1st round QB in longer than all but 2 other teams, and why we haven't won anything.

OnTheWarpath15 01-28-2010 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488474)
Is this where I boldly proclaim that he'll improve nearly 20 spots next year? Thus merely placing him among the bottom 1/3 of all starters instead of all eligible QBs?
http://i34.tinypic.com/a5ckll.gif

Mecca 01-28-2010 10:35 PM
Quick does anyone know what team has gone the longest without taking a QB, it'll be funny when you realize what team it is...

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488483)
Quick does anyone know what team has gone the longest without taking a QB, it'll be funny when you realize what team it is...
Is it MN?

Edit: Fail, fail, fail. '99.

OnTheWarpath15 01-28-2010 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488483)
Quick does anyone know what team has gone the longest without taking a QB, it'll be funny when you realize what team it is...
Good question.

I don't think the Saints have taken one since Adrian McPherson in 2005.

I'm sure there's someone that's gone longer.

Mecca 01-28-2010 10:38 PM
No it's not...there's 2 teams longer than the Chiefs and 1 that has gone to the same year...so 2 longer and 1 the same..

If you get all 3 without looking it up I will bow to your knowledge.

OnTheWarpath15 01-28-2010 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488490)
Is it MN?
They just took John David Booty in the 5th two years ago.

Mecca 01-28-2010 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6488491)
Good question.

I don't think the Saints have taken one since Adrian McPherson in 2005.

I'm sure there's someone that's gone longer.
The Saints are one of the 2 that hasn't taken a 1st round QB in longer than the Chiefs their last one was Archie Manning in the 70's, there's one longer.

Mecca 01-28-2010 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6488493)
They just took John David Booty in the 5th two years ago.
I mean in the 1st round...

OnTheWarpath15 01-28-2010 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488497)
I mean in the 1st round...
Oh. That changes the question.

The Rams are definitely one.

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488492)
No it's not...there's 2 teams longer than the Chiefs and 1 that has gone to the same year...so 2 longer and 1 the same..

If you get all 3 without looking it up I will bow to your knowledge.
You're talking about round 1, right?

Miami is the same year, I believe.

Mecca 01-28-2010 10:41 PM
The Rams are the longest their last one is like 68 or 69.

So basically, Missouri hates QB's is the end result of this.

And Miami is the one that is the same year as Deez mentioned.

The list goes

Rams
Saints
Dolphins/Chiefs

What an inspiring list to be on.

OnTheWarpath15 01-28-2010 10:44 PM
Bledsoe was #1 overall in 1993.

Nice edit, ****er.

Mr. Flopnuts 01-28-2010 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6488514)
Bledsoe was #1 overall in 1993.
Yeah, right after I hit post, I remembered.

Mecca 01-28-2010 10:46 PM
Even the expansion teams have taken a QB in the 1st round since we have...hell several teams have multiple first round QB's.

It's rather depressing.

Mr. Flopnuts 01-28-2010 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6488514)
Bledsoe was #1 overall in 1993.

Nice edit, ****er.
LMAO The only time I delete posts is when they're filled with idiocy. I haven't done it more than 2 or 3 thousand times.

ChiefsCountry 01-28-2010 10:54 PM
Damn is it deja vu in here didn't all the first round QB stats happen last year at this time.

patteeu 01-28-2010 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488510)
The Rams are the longest their last one is like 68 or 69.

So basically, Missouri hates QB's is the end result of this.

And Miami is the one that is the same year as Deez mentioned.

The list goes

Rams
Saints
Dolphins/Chiefs

What an inspiring list to be on.
That hasn't prevented three of those teams from having at least one Superbowl caliber QB since the last time they took a 1st rounder. That's pretty good odds (75%).

And FWIW, 75% is much better than 18%

Mecca 01-28-2010 11:20 PM
The only one of those teams that's won a bowl since then is the Rams and the reason Miami is tied with the Chiefs is their pick in the same year was a HOFer.

3 of the 4 teams that haven't used a high pick on a QB in more than 20 years are also teams that haven't won anything....I guess we need to start canvasing grocery stores.

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488564)
That hasn't prevented three of those teams from having at least one Superbowl caliber QB since the last time they took a 1st rounder. That's pretty good odds (75%).

And FWIW, 75% is much better than 18%
I guess those are good odds, save for the fact that we represent the 25%.

So maybe it's time to try another approach? Maybe acquiring someone else's backup/castoff isn't working too well?

DaneMcCloud 01-28-2010 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488146)
Which QB do you want with the fifth overall pick this year Dane?
Dude, I never stated that the Chiefs should take a QB with the fifth pick overall. They should have taken a QB last year in the first round but instead, we got Hurrican Tyson Jackson, the 5 tech Wonder Boy.

And his impact was immeasurable. And I mean that literally.


Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488146)
I still agree with Chris Meck.
I'm sorry to hear that because that is NOT the way to build a football team. You build a team around a franchise QB, PERIOD.

Pittsburgh would not have won two Super Bowls this decade with Ben. The Colts wouldn't be in a position to win their second without Manning. The Giants would not have won without Eli. The list goes on and on and on and on.

In this day and age, you need a first round QB to compete for the Championship.

Mecca 01-28-2010 11:26 PM
It Bill Cowher would have realized he needed a QB years ago the Steelers would have several more bowls.

DaneMcCloud 01-28-2010 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488591)
It Bill Cowher would have realized he needed a QB years ago the Steelers would have several more bowls.
Exactly. He could have been in at least two more Super Bowls had he not relied on journeyman backups and never-was QB's.

DeezNutz 01-28-2010 11:32 PM
Why is this still a debated topic?

We haven't won jack ****ing shit in forever. When we had fantastic o-lines, nasty ****ing defenses, solid special teams--all in the same year--we still haven't won shit.

What's been missing? What's still missing?

We just watched impressively poor QB play this season AND STILL we're debating the merits of trying to acquire a franchise QB. Wow.

DaneMcCloud 01-28-2010 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488613)
Why is this still a debated topic?

We haven't won jack ****ing shit in forever. When we had fantastic o-lines, nasty ****ing defenses, solid special teams--all in the same year--we still haven't won shit.

What's been missing? What's still missing?

We just watched impressively poor QB play this season AND STILL we're debating the merits of trying to acquire a franchise QB. Wow.
Not wow.

Wow, business as usual.

Mecca 01-28-2010 11:39 PM
That's being a Chiefs fan, if the Chiefs were the Colts this forum would have exploded that we couldn't draft Manning because of what happened with Jeff George.

DaneMcCloud 01-28-2010 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488635)
That's being a Chiefs fan, if the Chiefs were the Colts this forum would have exploded that we couldn't draft Manning because of what happened with Jeff George.
Or the Chargers after Leaf.

Sweet Daddy Hate 01-28-2010 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488613)
Why is this still a debated topic?

We haven't won jack ****ing shit in forever. When we had fantastic o-lines, nasty ****ing defenses, solid special teams--all in the same year--we still haven't won shit.

What's been missing? What's still missing?

We just watched impressively poor QB play this season AND STILL we're debating the merits of trying to acquire a franchise QB. Wow.
Because people are ****ing reeruned, that's why.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488575)
The only one of those teams that's won a bowl since then is the Rams and the reason Miami is tied with the Chiefs is their pick in the same year was a HOFer.

3 of the 4 teams that haven't used a high pick on a QB in more than 20 years are also teams that haven't won anything....I guess we need to start canvasing grocery stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6488583)
I guess those are good odds, save for the fact that we represent the 25%.

So maybe it's time to try another approach? Maybe acquiring someone else's backup/castoff isn't working too well?
No, actually we're in the 75%.

Rams: Kurt Warner
New Orleans: Drew Brees
Chiefs: Joe Montana

Miami is the only team that hasn't found a top notch QB since the last time they took a guy in the first round, but as Mecca points out, they had the high quality services of that guy for a really long time so they've had their share of good QB play.

Mecca 01-29-2010 12:02 AM
The Chiefs had Montana for 2 years, it's really hard to count that.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6488586)
Dude, I never stated that the Chiefs should take a QB with the fifth pick overall. They should have taken a QB last year in the first round but instead, we got Hurrican Tyson Jackson, the 5 tech Wonder Boy.
OK, then I don't understand your protestations. Chris Meck and I were talking about this year (and future years depending on the situation) not last year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6488586)
And his impact was immeasurable. And I mean that literally.
LMAO

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488681)
The Chiefs had Montana for 2 years, it's really hard to count that.
You're just sore because you didn't get it right.

DaneMcCloud 01-29-2010 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488678)
No, actually we're in the 75%.

Rams: Kurt Warner
New Orleans: Drew Brees
Chiefs: Joe Montana

Miami is the only team that hasn't found a top notch QB since the last time they took a guy in the first round, but as Mecca points out, they had the high quality services of that guy for a really long time so they've had their share of good QB play.
But, a case could be made that those guys were all moved because their old teams drafted a first round QB.

Case in point:

Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Steve Young

The Giants and 49ers subsequently won the Super Bowl, so I think it worked out.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488681)
The Chiefs had Montana for 2 years, it's really hard to count that.
Besides, the Chiefs had 2 different SB QBs during that time period. Rich Gannon is the other one. Between Montana and Gannon, the Chiefs had a SuperBowl caliber QB on the roster for 6 years.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6488689)
But, a case could be made that those guys were all moved because their old teams drafted a first round QB.

Case in point:

Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Steve Young

The Giants and 49ers subsequently won the Super Bowl, so I think it worked out.
I'm not against drafting a QB in the first round. I'm against doing it this year. And FWIW, Steve Young wasn't drafted by San Fran.

Mecca 01-29-2010 12:08 AM
You're really stretching now...

DaneMcCloud 01-29-2010 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488691)
Steve Young wasn't drafted by San Fran.
That doesn't matter.

All of the QB's you listed were moved because their respective teams acquired a QB in the first round.

And two of those three won a Super Bowl.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488692)
You're really stretching now...
Do you need vasoline? :p

Mecca 01-29-2010 12:11 AM
The Chiefs traded 2 1st round picks for Montana and Green and got less years combined out of them than the Colts have gotten from Manning, think about that.

RustShack 01-29-2010 12:13 AM
This was touched on earlier in the thread, and I'm not going to go back and quote. But I do love how Chiefs fans are anti-first round QB. They are so afraid of another bust after Blackledge.. but the one QB every year who they would be OK with taking.. is always the system(spread)just like Blackledge instead of the physically talented guy from a Pro Style offense ROFL

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6488693)
That doesn't matter.

All of the QB's you listed were moved because their respective teams acquired a QB in the first round.

And two of those three won a Super Bowl.
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.

Mecca 01-29-2010 12:16 AM
It does matter, there's a reason some teams have small windows while say the Colts window has been open for nearly a decade now.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488698)
The Chiefs traded 2 1st round picks for Montana and Green and got less years combined out of them than the Colts have gotten from Manning, think about that.
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.

Mecca 01-29-2010 12:20 AM
I don't think getting 2 years out of a 1st round pick is enough.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488707)
It does matter, there's a reason some teams have small windows while say the Colts window has been open for nearly a decade now.
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.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488712)
I don't think getting 2 years out of a 1st round pick is enough.
Between Green and Montana we had 8 years so it would be an average of 4 years for every 1st round pick. Out of the 8, one would be a growing pains year and two would be the aging superstar years.

DaneMcCloud 01-29-2010 12:25 AM
Quote:
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.
Favre and Montana fell short of the goal. Montana cost the Chiefs a valuable first round pick.

I think it matters quite a bit.

DaneMcCloud 01-29-2010 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488714)
Between Green and Montana we had 8 years so it would be an average of 4 years for every 1st round pick. Out of the 8, one would be a growing pains year and two would be the aging superstar years.
Trent Green's first and last year should be thrown out of this discussion for obvious reasons.

That leaves 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

8-8, 13-3, 7-9, 10-6.

Two winning seasons, ZERO playoff wins.

The Chiefs should have selected Brees at #12 overall in 2001.

Mecca 01-29-2010 12:27 AM
And with your philosophy your team would start to suck because you'd have to constantly be trading for a QB.

It requires risk to be great, if the fear of taking a QB high is to great for you because he might bust, then you need to get out.

RustShack 01-29-2010 12:29 AM
We shouldn't take the risk of being a Super Bowl Champion, lets just reach for 8-8 again.

Sweet Daddy Hate 01-29-2010 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488692)
You're really stretching now...
"Stretching" is a generous descriptive in this case.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6488715)
Favre and Montana fell short of the goal. Montana cost the Chiefs a valuable first round pick.

I think it matters quite a bit.
There's a far better than 50/50 chance that Sanchez will never make it to the Superbowl, but yet you would have drafted him last year. Suggesting that the pick used on Montana wasn't well spent just because the team ended up falling short is something I can't agree with.

Favre didn't even cost a pick. Picking him up was well worth it even though it didn't pan out for the Vikings.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6488718)
Trent Green's first and last year should be thrown out of this discussion for obvious reasons.

That leaves 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

8-8, 13-3, 7-9, 10-6.

Two winning seasons, ZERO playoff wins.

The Chiefs should have selected Brees at #12 overall in 2001.
Yeah, I should have included an injury year for Green's last season with us. I still think it was worth it. We didn't fail to win playoff games during those years because Trent Green was our QB. Trent Green was the leader of the most prolific offense the Chiefs have ever had. The credit needs to be shared with the likes of Priest Holmes, Willie Roaf and several others, but there's no reason to believe that there would have been any playoff victories if the Chiefs had had Brees instead of Green. Brees couldn't have forced Indy to punt.

Mecca 01-29-2010 12:38 AM
Sanchez already made it as far with the Jets as Montana did with us.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488719)
And with your philosophy your team would start to suck because you'd have to constantly be trading for a QB.

It requires risk to be great, if the fear of taking a QB high is to great for you because he might bust, then you need to get out.
You don't just blindly draft QBs in the first round just to take a chance. Which QB do you want at #5 this year?

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488734)
Sanchez already made it as far with the Jets as Montana did with us.
He didn't get to the Superbowl. Dane counts that as a fail. I presume you must also.

Personally, I think it's a good start. The odds are still against him making it to a Superbowl though, IMO.

Mecca 01-29-2010 12:43 AM
You take an educated risk, we should have taken Sanchez last year, but no.

patteeu 01-29-2010 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6488750)
You take an educated risk, we should have taken Sanchez last year, but no.
That's all I've been saying. You take an educated risk when it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense this year. Do you?

smittysbar 01-29-2010 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488757)
That's all I've been saying. You take an educated risk when it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense this year. Do you?
Absolutely, it makes sense every year as long as you don't have a franchise QB on your roster.

Sweet Daddy Hate 01-29-2010 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488746)
He didn't get to the Superbowl. Dane counts that as a fail. I presume you must also.

Personally, I think it's a good start. The odds are still against him making it to a Superbowl though, IMO.
HE'S 22 YEARS OLD GODDAMNIT!

****!:mad:

patteeu 01-29-2010 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittysbar (Post 6488768)
Absolutely, it makes sense every year as long as you don't have a franchise QB on your roster.
So who do you pick with the #5?

smittysbar 01-29-2010 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 6488784)
So who do you pick with the #5?
Well of course it depends on who goes before him, and I will get ripped for this, but I really like Bradford.

I also like Berry if he is there, playmaker!

Ebolapox 01-29-2010 01:12 AM
oh FFS, why is this fanbase satisfied with mediocrity?!?

patteeu 01-29-2010 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittysbar (Post 6488787)
Well of course it depends on who goes before him, and I will get ripped for this, but I really like Bradford.

I also like Berry if he is there, playmaker!
OK. If you like Bradford, I'm not going to argue with you. If we draft him, I hope he turns into a hall of famer.

My personal preference is for Berry. A Tennessee fan friend of mine loves him and has nothing but good things to say about him. Apparently Lane Kiffin said he was one of the smartest and hardest working football players he's ever been around. (Of course, you can't really trust anything Lane Kiffin says, LOL). He's also apparently a model citizen off the field. Those things and the fact that he's a stud player make for a pretty solid combination.

Chris Meck 01-29-2010 02:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6487929)
You're a ****ing dummy.

There's nothing further to discuss.

Adios, Muchacho.
and you're a ridiculous, puffed up, completely ridiculous impotent shitbag. You're pathetic. Somehow you feel like you have some sort of status on an internet forum that allows you to enact some sort of dominant type A behavior? I bet you're a ****ing janitor. Or worse, I bet you work in a cubicle doing pointless data entry and kiss ass for a living. That might explain your attitude.

Weak. Anytime you'd like to discuss in person, you shoot me a pm, chief. You sure do like to call people pussies under cover of the interwebs. Let's just call this what it is: YOU are a joke. Everyone here knows it. Shitheads like you drive thinking folks away from this site based on your juvenile bullshit. No more GAZ, for example-to actually talk football with respect.

You're a joke, Dane. Now clean your room before your mom grounds you.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:45 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.