Given the realities of the players available there is no logical way by which his moving would improve the team. Again, at best it's a specious argument. It suggests an impossibility then ruminates on the implications of something that wouldn't happen happening. Pointless at best.

Why would they put the franchise tag on a guy and basically agree to pay him the average salary of the top 5 at his position and only look to get a 2nd round pick for him? If he is worth that kind of money then you keep him. If he is only worth a 2nd rounder then they are probably overpaying. If they trade Albert for only a 2 IMO they contradicting themselves.

This is the lounge. Keep the quibbling in DC please.

It would be, despite not being the flashy fan favorite. From everything I get Joeckel and Fisher are to tackles what Luck and RG3 were to qbs last year. Not a lot of flash, however, you get younger cheaper tackles that shore up the position without injury. Especially, when the swap gets you the extra pick to possibly pick up a qb.

No, dipshit.

We were responding to the stupid post that suggested that Albert was responsible in some way for the crap teams that have taken the field since he's been Chief.

You have to tag him before you can trade him. See Matt Cassel.

No one said Albert was to blame for Cassel's play... and Huard's play... and Thigpen's play... and Palko's play... and Quinn's play, either. (keg's post)

No one said the reason to consider upgrading the offensive line was to give the QB 12 - 19 seconds of additional protection, either. (your post)

No one said the best offensive lineman should automatically be cut if your team sucks for several years in a row after he's drafted, either. (milkman and candyman's posts).

It works both ways.

Trading a 1st round LT in his prime, only to replace him with a 1st round tackle who may or may not be as good as him, seems a waste of a first round pick. Does it not?

We may be able to trade down in the first and pick up that 2nd round pick that everyone is wiling to take for Albert anyway, right?

quibbling I say. I call foul.

Has this trade rumor been confirmed by any other sources? Legit question.

I thought two 1st rounders were the required compensation for a franchised player?

Read the post, you ****ing moron.

What a surprise.

The post that specifically pointed out that there were other causes for the Chiefs problems during that period. Albert has contributed to the fail on more than one occasion even if he's one of the brighter spots on that side of the ball. He, himself, admits that he's had some disappointing seasons. As usual, you over-reacted to a pretty reasonable critique. You know, you can disagree with people without pretending that their comments are stupid.

But you're defending using 1.1 to marginally upgrade a position of relative strength. It's not the style of the argument, its the content. You're just on the wrong side of this argument.