no, according to Dane, you just take best QB on the board whenever you pick in round one until you get Johnny Unitas. Because, with no offensive line, no running game, no WR's, and no defense, Johnny Unitas will still be Johnny Unitas. Pay no attention to Joey Harrington, Heath Schuler, David Carr, Tim Couch, Rick Mirer, Byron Leftwich (yep, that's a first round QB pick!) Matt Leinart , Akili Smith, Jamarcus Russell...because whether or not you thought Russell was worth the top pick overall NOBODY would've said he wasn't worth a #1 SOMEWHERE...
And there you are. Like no other position, you just never know with QB's. If you don't have a longterm answer, yeah, I think you need to draft one every friggin' year until you do. But according to dipshit Dane's own math, you have a 60% chance of doing so in rounds other than ONE. So there you go.

By the way, I'd take one if I thought there was one worthy. I just generally don't think so. Matt Ryan was the last one that I personally thought was tempting. I don't think you should take one just because he's the 'highest rated' and a 'first round value'. Bullshit. Jamarcus was first round 'value' on any board. Can't read a defense to save his life. So what does that tell you?

According to Dane, you should draft him every year regardless, until he works out. Whatever. Dipshit.

You're going a bit overboard here.

That Al Davis is the ****ing idiot we always knew him to be?

But thanks for playing Carl! We miss you buddy!

no, I used to love this site, and was a regular at the old Star site before it. I used to really enjoy talking football-even with those I disagreed with, but with a certain civility general decency that has been sorely lacking in the last few years. I don't have to agree with you. I'll respect your opinion though, if you have anything at all to back it up.

I'm going overboard? I've been called derogatory names for voicing my opinion, called a pussy, for chrissakes, but I AM GOING OVERBOARD by calling that shitheel out? Really?

I think there ought to be a bit more of my 'overboardness' around here. I think it ought to be acceptable to have different ****ing opinions here without cowardly internet bullies that like to call names from dark corners of their mothers' basements.

I've been lurking here a lot, because I DO miss talking about my favorite team and football in general, and I certainly don't agree with you on a LOT of fronts, Mecca, but I don't see you going HERE, where Dane goes, with stupid namecalling bullshit. He's a coward. I don't buy this whole 'it's just my internet persona, dude' crap that people like him like to put forward. Asshole in print is an asshole in person, sorry to say. If you're not willing to say it in person to someone's face, perhaps you should self edit.

You have to take Dane for what he is, I've been personally attacked numerous times by several posters, it happens.

well, I understand exactly what he is. I know full well how to deal with a bully. They're cowards and don't like being confronted.

And I meant you were going a bit overboard on the QB thing, all QB's are risks you take an educated risk.

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.

I am gonna hop on the Gabbert bandwagon and hope that he manages to get drafted by us. He has so much potential.

I've said this many times.

Trading for Montana and not acquiring a young QB to take over when he was injured (inevitable) and retired was a mistake that we are still paying for.

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.

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.

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.

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

Double ditto.

It didn't hurt Rogers, McNair, Young, Pennington, Bulger, Hasslebeck, or any number of young guys who sat behind someone established as the franchise QB.

Hell, pretty much anyone who sat behind Deberg became an all star...

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.

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.

You're talking about the QB's window. Dan Marino was great for well over a decade, but his team didn't have a legitimate window of Super Bowl contention for that entire period. For example, from 1986 through 1989, they didn't have a winning season mainly because their defenses were window closers. The Chiefs defenses of the Vermeil era kept the Chiefs from realizing the potential of Trent Green's offenses, but even with those defenses, the Chiefs were winning.

No one would confuse Trent Green with Dan Marino in terms of value to his team, and if Flacco or Sanchez end up being top notch QBs over the course of a long career, their teams will have put themselves well ahead of the game. But neither of those guys can be considered Dan Marinos yet either and IMO, they still have to prove that they can even become Trent Greens.

Brees wouldn't have been any good to the Chiefs if he'd have been traded after his first few years just like he was in San Diego.

Edit: I should have said "let go" rather than "traded"

I just don't know how you can say that when Brees would have given us likely 10 years of production instead of the 3 that Green really gave.

I liked Trent Green, but you need more than 3 productive years out of a first rounder for it to be a win.

He wouldn't have been traded. The whole reason he was even let go was because of the development of Philip Rivers.

I am talking about making long term investment at the most improtant position on the filed.

QBs don't win championships by themselves, but having a top notch young QB in place gives you the opportunity to find and open the window for a much longer stretch than trading for or signing a backup that is already approaching 30.

If the Chiefs had drafted Brees, rather than trading for Green, they would not only have had the QB for that window, but also have that QB for the next window.

Had they built the team the right way to start with, using the draft rather than trading for and signing players that were on the downside of thoer careers, they could have opened a window for 10-12 years, rather than simply have that 4 year window.

That was why I still consider the trade for Montana a mistake.

They had the talent in place to compete for the better part of a decade, but by trading for Montana, and not having a better contingency plan in place in case of injury and for his retirement, they essentially opeend a two year window.

That, to me, was sheer stupidity and piss poor planning.

The reason that Rivers was drafted was because the Chargers, after Brees struggled in his second season, decided that he was not the QB going forward.

The reason they let Brees walk was because of his shoulder injury and the investment they made in Rivers.

The fact is, they gave up on Brees too quickly, and the investment they made in Rivers put them in a position where they couldn't keep both.

:clap:

Brees wasn't "likely" to give anyone 10 years of production in the minds of the 32 or so teams that passed on him in the first round of his draft. Anyone "likely" to give a team 10 years of QB production is taken in the first round.

And Green had 4 productive years for the Chiefs. He could have had even more if it weren't for a cheap shot that effectively ended his career. Drew Brees isn't immune to catastrophic injury, he just hasn't had one yet.

I don't have a problem with your philosophy and, in hindsight at least, I agree that the contingency plan of using the 49ers bench as your QB pipeline was horrible, but in terms of expected value (meaning you have to account for the failures as well as the successes), I still think both trades were wins for the Chiefs.

Is there a QB you think the Chiefs should draft this year with the #5 pick?

I'm not sure that your question has any value in this discussion.

I don't like any of the "first round" QBs in this draft.

However, if the Cheifs believe there's a QB that has that kind of value, and they pass on him because they already have Cassel in place, then I think they are playing a osing hand.

I believe that Cassel has the potential to be a solid game manager, but if I also believed that Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford were potential franchise QBs, I'd draft them, Cassel be damned.

The Chiefs need to show similar foresight after Cassel, once again, proves he's not the answer.

I really don't want to put words in Milkmans mouth, but this method is what we have used to pretty much no avail over through the CP years. We built a team of great players, but were not able to put the QB in place with that great team to get the job done. In most cases, the true franchise QB's are taken at the top of round 1. No guarantees they will pan out... just like any other position... but that is where you get one.

Let's just say we draft defense heavy... and everything clicks... and we get out team up to our famous 8-8 to 9-7 position. We are now out of the top 5 position we have been in for the last 3 drafts. And up to this point, it appears that all 3 QB's selected (Ryan, Stafford, and Sanchez) are going to be legit QB's. We had an opportunity (yes it would have required a trade up to get two of them, but these things happen to the teams that value the QB spot) to get all three of them, but passed.

Like MM stated, if there is a QB that is valued by our staff to be a legit franchise QB, then we need to select him this year, regardless of Cassel.

I am expecting 8-8 in '10. Anything else is a complete failure.

So let's say this comes to fruition, even with this middling draft position, we should have an opportunity to move up and snag a Gabbert next season. I think concerns about coming from the spread will mean he goes somewhere in the 5-10 range.

We need to make this happen. Good teams create opportunities for themselves.

That said, if our current staff believes Clausen can be "the" guy, we SHOULD take him if he falls.

If Cassel were rookie going into his second year, I would suggest that giving up on him this early would be mistake.

But Cassel, while only going into his third year as a starter, is still a guy that with 5 years in the league, whose upside is game manager at best.

If he doesn't make huge strides next season, finding a QB at the top of the draft becomes a priority.

We're at this point now. Or at least we should be.

I know the bitch is ugly, so I don't need to see the results from her "amazing" makeover to reaffirm what I already know. But I'm sure Pioli thinks Weis is going to polish that turd pretty effectively this offseason.

I'm worried that Scott doesn't smell the shit, though.

:LOL:

The problem is that, while you already know the bitch is ugly, the only available place to look for a better looking bitch at this point in time is 20 dollar hooker convention.

Next year at this time, the high priced call girls will be available.

:eek:

I'm good with throwing a little bit of coin at a lesser skank, later in the night, this year, and going the whole hog in '11.

The question has value because, in this case, it got you to acknowledge that reasonable people can differ on whether any given draft class has a guy that you can expect to be a 10-12 year window-creating franchise QB. We can agree on the idea that if such a prospect is available then any team should draft him at the very first opportunity unless they already have their 10-12 year guy and he's young enough that it's too early to draft a replacement. (And in some cases, maybe you draft the replacement anyway and trade one of the two).

It's too easy to look back and say that the Chiefs screwed up in a particular year by passing on a guy who ended up panning out. Maybe you've got an exceptional eye for QBs so I'm leaving you out of this, but with the availability of hindsight there are a lot of people out there who would say that they wanted Drew Brees with our first in 2001 without admitting that they also wanted Jim Druckenmiller with our first in 1997. All I'm saying is that picking a franchise QB isn't as easy as so many people around here make it out to be so the question becomes how much of a flyer are you willing to take? In hindsight, Drew Brees is arguably a better pick than Trent Green, but Tony Gonzalez is unarguably a better pick than Jim Druckenmiller.

2001 is a messy example. Media members saw Grandpa's board, and Brees was listed at the top.

Holmes, however, has said in interviews that the team told him that if the Green acquisition didn't go down, they were going to select McAllister and thus wouldn't sign Priest.

Who knows...

And you're right about the duplicity of some using hindsight. But here's all that matters to me: the upside of drafting and developing your own franchise QB is so great that this franchise MUST take that risk.

Yeah, Druckenmiller sucked and we had a HOF TE. A TE, mind you. Personally, I'll take the risk to acquire a franchise QB every. single. day. Assuming I believe said player grades out appropriately, of course.

If that means I miss out on a TE or a G, I'm sure many in the KC market will lament it, but...dems da breaks.

How many of those 3 QBs do you think will see a Super Bowl during their careers? My guess is that the over/under should be set at 1 and I'd bet the under.

As long as you pro-1st-round-QB guys hedge your arguments by leaving it up to the Chiefs staff beliefs, I don't see how you can be critical of them when they end up passing on a QB. It's a no-brainer to say that they should pick a QB if they believe he's a legit franchise guy. I'm sure that both Pioli and Peterson would completely agree with that so it's not really relevant to the argument.

The argument comes when you guys take the position that the Chiefs staff is too risk averse or when they don't recognize obvious talent the way you perhaps think that you do. For those in your camp that don't see a legit QB in this draft, the argument really disappears.

I know that you've advocated Clausen in the past so you're welcome to argue that the Chiefs are screwing up if they don't take him, but if they don't, time will be the only judge of who was right. So where do you stand on the #5 pick. Is there a legit QB or not? I'm with milkman in the "not" category so that leads me to embrace Chris Meck's approach of taking a project in a later round for this year.

Pretty easy to do when Pioli has made far more poor decisions than good ones since arriving in town.

He's not getting the benefit of the doubt. And I don't believe in "honeymoon periods" or "evaluation years." That's a complete load of bullshit that too many are willing to swallow.

Here's the thing.

Nothing I say or do really matters.

The fact is, I didn't like Brees in that draft.

I never thought he'd be anything more than a marginal starter, at best.

But it's not my job to make these decisions, and according to reports, the Chiefs had Brees at the top of their draft board until they traded for Green.

I didn't like the trade for Green either, because I don't like short term solutions to the QB position (or most positions for that matter).

I bitched about the decision, and had they not traded for Green, I would have bitched about the decision to draft Brees.

But, when it's all said and done, I would have gotten over the decision to draft Brees, given what he has become.

Now that it's all said and done as it relates to Green, I still bitch about that trade, because in the end, it turned out to be a short term solution, as I expected.

If that's the way you feel, you shouldn't be deferring to the Chiefs' staff in the way that a couple of other pro-1st-round-QB guys have in this thread. All I'm saying is that ANY staff that thinks there's a legit franchise QB available when they pick in the draft should and IMO would take him so I think we can all agree that the Chiefs should do it if that's what their evaluations lead them to believe.

That's admirably honest of you to admit that you weren't on the Brees bandwagon in advance (those who keep better track of these things might have already known it, I suppose, but still I commend you). I agree with you that it's the professional's job to recognize talent better than we do so to some extent hindsight criticism is deserved.

I'd always heard the story that the Chiefs would have drafted McAllister if they hadn't traded their 1st away so my conclusion is that they must not have thought of Brees as a legit franchise guy. To them, he appears to have been the best among a bunch of prospects.

Clausen is still my top option. But I also think we lost out on him by beating the Broncos. :shrug: Won't be long and we will know on that. In fact, I'm thinking Suh, McCoy, Berry, and Clausen will go in some sort of order in the first 4 picks.

And, I am not comfortable with the Okung/Davis LT selection being tossed around. I'd rather someone like Buffalo or SF might swing a deal where we could drop down and get some more players in the top 50 rather than go one of those two that high. And I know I will be in the minority here, but then I would take a flier on Tebow in the 3rd if he is still there. Dude may have some technique issues, but he is definately a winner.

I wouldn't be upset with a Tebow pick on the second day. Surely they can make something out of him even if he doesn't pan out at QB.

No way in hell I want to waste a pick on a guy without a position.

He's a luxury pick, at best, and we have far too many holes to take a flyer on a luxury.

Call Jacksonville; you might be able to work something out.





























Not.:)