ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs To those who wanted to rebuild (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=194709)

Coach 10-20-2008 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5137223)
Rudy kind of sucks...

When matching up on 3-4 NT's yeah, I can see that.

Even that, I think Rudy needs to go back to the G spot.

PastorMikH 10-20-2008 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5137106)
I'm sorry, but this is just fundamentally wrong. First of all, there are NO FA QBs worth pursuing.

Secondly, what do you notice about the Patriots, Colts, and Giants? All have home-grown QBs.

What worthwhile QB had the Colts developed in 40 years before Peyton Manning?

The Giants hadn't drafted a worthwhile QB in 25 years before Eli.

The Patriots had Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady, but missed horribly on a number of other QBs.



From the way people seem to think around here, franchice QBs grow on trees. KC has an interesting record with drafting "Franchise" QBs.

I took a look at KC's drafted QBs since their inception in Dallas on profootballrefference.com. They have drafted a total of 29 QBs, 9 of which were drafted in rounds 1-3. Let's take a look...

Eddie Wilson, 3rd round '62 - 1 start (resulted in a tie) 0-0-1
Pete Beathard, 1st round '64 (2nd overall pick) - 1-1
Mike Livingston, 2nd round '68 - 31-43-1
Steve Fuller, 1st round '74 (23rd overall pick) - 13-18
Todd Blackledge, 1st round '83 (7th overall pick) - 13-11
Brodie Croyle, 3rd round '06 - 0-8

Add in... David Jaynes (3rd '74), Mike Elkins (2nd '89), and Matt Blundin (2nd '92) who never got a start.


Yeah, KC has a stellar record of drafting QBs. Our "Franchise" QB prospects have a combined record of 58-81-2. Oddly enough, the ONLY QB we drafted and started with a winning record is the one QB I've heard called the biggest failure in KC draft history - Todd Blackledge.

Like I said, our track record of signing FAs and trading for QB has been more successull to this point than drafting a QB. Even Kreig, Bono, and GrBac have been better for us than those we tried to draft, that should say a lot about KC's ability to draft/develop a QB. And the three best QBs to ever chunk the ball for KC IMO came via trades, Dawson, Montana, and Green.



Would I like to see KC draft the next Manning or Brady - ABSOLUTELY! But rational thinking tells me that if we ONLY look for potential QBs in the draft, we're really limiting our chances at finding a succesful QB.

DaneMcCloud 10-20-2008 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorMikH (Post 5137244)
Would I like to see KC draft the next Manning or Brady - ABSOLUTELY! But rational thinking tells me that if we ONLY look for potential QBs in the draft, we're really limiting our chances at finding a succesful QB.

The Chiefs need to draft a first day QB every other year and a second day QB on the off years.

It's LUDICROUS to expect a team to find a franchise quarterback when they've only selected ONE round one, two round two and ONE third round draft choice in 25 YEARS.

Meanwhile, Green Bay took Mark Brunell, Aaron Brooks, Matt Hasselbeck and Aaron Rodgers while Favre was on the roster (hell, there were probably more - I'm going off the top of my head).

THAT'S the way to use the draft, ladies and gents.

PastorMikH 10-20-2008 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5137251)
The Chiefs need to draft a first day QB every other year and a second day QB on the off years.

It's LUDICROUS to expect a team to find a franchise quarterback when they've only selected ONE round one, two round two and ONE third round draft choice in 25 YEARS.

Meanwhile, Green Bay took Mark Brunnell, Aaron Brooks, Matt Hasselbeck and Aaron Rodgers while Favre was on the roster (hell, there were probably more - I'm going off the top of my head).

THAT'S the way to use the draft, ladies and gents.




Dane, we can't afford to take a QB the first day of the draft every other year. We need those picks at other positions to make up for all the busts we drafted the year before.

In all actuality, the best time to draft a QB IMO is when you have a really good one on the roster. It would have been a smart move to use the pick we spent on Sims, Savai, or one of the many other busts for some QBs while Green was here. Worst case scenario, the QB pick turns out just like those picks did.

'Hamas' Jenkins 10-20-2008 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5137251)
The Chiefs need to draft a first day QB every other year and a second day QB on the off years.

It's LUDICROUS to expect a team to find a franchise quarterback when they've only selected ONE round one, two round two and ONE third round draft choice in 25 YEARS.

Meanwhile, Green Bay took Mark Brunell, Aaron Brooks, Matt Hasselbeck and Aaron Rodgers while Favre was on the roster (hell, there were probably more - I'm going off the top of my head).

THAT'S the way to use the draft, ladies and gents.

Ingle Martin was one. Craig Nall was another.

'Hamas' Jenkins 10-20-2008 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorMikH (Post 5137260)
Dane, we can't afford to take a QB the first day of the draft every other year. We need those picks at other positions to make up for all the busts we drafted the year before.

In all actuality, the best time to draft a QB IMO is when you have a really good one on the roster. It would have been a smart move to use the pick we spent on Sims, Savai, or one of the many other busts for some QBs while Green was here. Worst case scenario, the QB pick turns out just like those picks did.

Which is an argument for need-based drafting, which has been a horrible failure.

People need to understand the importance of positional valuing and drafting the best available player within that framework.

DaneMcCloud 10-20-2008 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5137266)
Which is an argument for need-based drafting, which has been a horrible failure.

People need to understand the importance of positional valuing and drafting the best available player within that framework.

And that's what I mean.

If the BAA is a QB, you take him, regardless of need.

The Chiefs ****ed up the draft from basically 1989 to 2007. They drafted for need and not BAA (with the exception of DT and TG).

The roster's been devoid of home-grown talent since.

SBK 10-20-2008 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5137262)
Ingle Martin was one. Craig Nall was another.

I don't know if they drafted him or not, but Kurt Warner was up there too.

'Hamas' Jenkins 10-20-2008 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5137277)
And that's what I mean.

If the BAA is a QB, you take him, regardless of need.

The Chiefs ****ed up the draft from basically 1989 to 2007. They drafted for need and not BAA (with the exception of DT and TG).

The roster's been devoid of home-grown talent since.

Well not only that, but if you have the choice between a guard with a draft grade of 100 and a DE with a grade of 98, you take the end because that position impacts the field more.

Now if it's a guard vs. a TE and the guard has a better grade, you take him.

SBK 10-20-2008 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5137284)
Well not only that, but if you have the choice between a guard with a draft grade of 100 and a DE with a grade of 98, you take the end because that position impacts the field more.

Now if it's a guard vs. a TE and the guard has a better grade, you take him.

You might as well be speaking Chinese to most of the people around here.

BPA, BPA, BPA, BPA. If at #1 BPA is a K you take him, BPA, BPA, BPA, BPA.

007 10-20-2008 11:41 PM

I am still waiting for a real rebuild.

TrickyNicky 10-20-2008 11:45 PM

Thats what I don't get about a lot of people being against a new coach installing a 3-4. Our "rebuilt" D is worse than GRobs. I mean, aside from Dorsey being basically a waste if we went to a 3-4, what other harm would be done?

DaneMcCloud 10-20-2008 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 5137295)
I am still waiting for a real rebuild.

And OJ's looking for the real killers.

Even while in prison.

'Hamas' Jenkins 10-20-2008 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrickyNicky (Post 5137302)
Thats what I don't get about a lot of people being against a new coach installing a 3-4. Our "rebuilt" D is worse than GRobs. I mean, aside from Dorsey being basically a waste if we went to a 3-4, what other harm would be done?

Johnson is borderline small for a 3-4 backer, we don't have a 3-4 NT (which is maybe the hardest position in football to find), so basically you'd be flushing Tank, Hali, Dorsey, and maybe Johnson too.

ChiefsCountry 10-20-2008 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrickyNicky (Post 5137302)
Thats what I don't get about a lot of people being against a new coach installing a 3-4. Our "rebuilt" D is worse than GRobs. I mean, aside from Dorsey being basically a waste if we went to a 3-4, what other harm would be done?

The talent is in place, the coaching is not.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:54 PM.

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