ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   NFL Draft Mock Me, Mock Me Hard!!! (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=193527)

ILChief 10-06-2008 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5089804)
No, that's not my stance at all, you just choose to blow right over it EVERY ****ing time it comes up.

Your attitude towards taking a QB with a Top 5 pick has become cartoonish.

This time last year, you were up in arms that if we had a chance to take Brohm and we didn't, well, you'd turn in your fan card. Last straw, I believe you said.

Well....we did, and we didn't.

And it turns out that Brohm is so ****ing phenomenal he can't beat out a 7th round pick for a backup job.

It's the same song and dance this year with Stafford.

"He's got all the physical attributes you look for"

"He can make all the throws"

Blah, blah and blah.

Same shit, different guy.

I'm all for taking a QB, provided he's worth the value of that pick at the time.

Forgive me for not genuflecting at the Altar of Stafford 6 months before the draft, when he hasn't looked that impressive to begin with this year.

This team has WAY too many holes to put in stone, six months before the draft, that we MUST take a QB in R1, or else. That's ****ing reeruned.

Stafford has looked very impressive.

<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="colhead" align="right"> <td align="left">NAME</td> <td>CMP</td> <td>ATT</td> <td>YDS</td> <td>CMP%</td> <td>YDS/A</td> <td>TD</td> <td>INT</td> <td>RAT</td></tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"> <td align="left">Matthew Stafford</td> <td>86</td> <td>144</td> <td>1193</td> <td>59.7</td> <td>8.29</td> <td>7</td> <td>1</td> <td>144.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

I don't know what more you could want from him. 60% completion and a 7-1 TD/INT ratio and a 144 Rating.

Mecca 10-06-2008 08:40 PM

Yea Matt Ryan was a reach of epic proportion right, didn't you try to sell that bag of goods?

Mecca 10-06-2008 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILChief (Post 5089821)
Stafford has looked very impressive.

<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="colhead" align="right"> <td align="left">NAME</td> <td>CMP</td> <td>ATT</td> <td>YDS</td> <td>CMP%</td> <td>YDS/A</td> <td>TD</td> <td>INT</td> <td>RAT</td></tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"> <td align="left">Matthew Stafford</td> <td>86</td> <td>144</td> <td>1193</td> <td>59.7</td> <td>8.29</td> <td>7</td> <td>1</td> <td>144.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

I don't know what more you could want from him. 60% completion and a 7-1 TD/INT ratio and a 144 Rating.

And he has absolute shit WR's to work with and has to routinely make NFL throws.

KCUnited 10-06-2008 08:42 PM

Eh, I could see St. Louis going LT just as much as I could see them going QB. Detroit on the other hand....

ILChief 10-06-2008 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCUnited (Post 5089838)
Eh, I could see St. Louis going LT just as much as I could see them going QB. Detroit on the other hand....

I think STL will go LT. They're paying Bulger a ton of $$$$.

Mecca 10-06-2008 08:43 PM

Also there are certain positions you don't use top 10 picks on, you don't take say a LB unless he's a pass rusher capable of 15 sacks with a top 5-10 pick or you will be ridiculously overpaying and overvaluing the position.

Alot more goes into a top 5-10 pick than just BPA.

OnTheWarpath15 10-06-2008 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5089810)
Apparently you think every person that does anything with the draft is an idiot then, projections change all the time.

It's pretty easy to sit back and say that when you give no opinion of it yourself than trying to project something months in advance.

Without a QB we are building to nothing unless you wanna be the Vikings which isn't my desire.

Hell you didn't even like Ryan, we see how that's workin out eh?

Minus a few deep balls that he's thrown to WR's with 10 yards of separation (sounds like your knock on Bradford) he hasn't been anything special, though he hasn't been terrible either.

Again, pining for the player we had NO CHANCE to take, because he was already gone.

And had we had the chance and taken him, I'm sure you'd be giving him every excuse why he'd be sucking ass right now.

Matt Ryan has four things he wouldn't have had in KC:

A decent OL

A great running game

WR's that can actually get open

Good coaching



If KC had drafted him, the countdown to bust status would have started the second after Goodell called his name...

LiL stumppy 10-06-2008 08:45 PM

San Fran will not draft Beenie Wells

Mecca 10-06-2008 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5089847)
Minus a few deep balls that he's thrown to WR's with 10 yards of separation (sounds like your knock on Bradford) he hasn't been anything special, though he hasn't been terrible either.

Again, pining for the player we had NO CHANCE to take, because he was already gone.

And had we had the chance and taken him, I'm sure you'd be giving him every excuse why he'd be sucking ass right now.

Matt Ryan has four things he wouldn't have had in KC:

A decent OL

A great running game

WR's that can actually get open

Good coaching



If KC had drafted him, the countdown to bust status would have started the second after Goodell called his name...

Well that it's then, our team is to stupid to develop a QB, we should all go be fans of other teams.

MIAdragon 10-06-2008 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiL stumppy (Post 5089851)
San Fran will not draft Beenie Wells

Thanks stumppy!

triple 10-06-2008 08:51 PM

no way do the lions finish 'ahead' of us

MIAdragon 10-06-2008 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by triple (Post 5089870)
no way do the lions finish 'ahead' of us

Dude its the "lions"

OnTheWarpath15 10-06-2008 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILChief (Post 5089821)
Stafford has looked very impressive.

<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="colhead" align="right"> <td align="left">NAME</td> <td>CMP</td> <td>ATT</td> <td>YDS</td> <td>CMP%</td> <td>YDS/A</td> <td>TD</td> <td>INT</td> <td>RAT</td></tr> <tr class="oddrow" align="right"> <td align="left">Matthew Stafford</td> <td>86</td> <td>144</td> <td>1193</td> <td>59.7</td> <td>8.29</td> <td>7</td> <td>1</td> <td>144.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

I don't know what more you could want from him. 60% completion and a 7-1 TD/INT ratio and a 144 Rating.


He could do more in big games, against good teams to start.

Sure, he's got great stats against Georgia Southern and Central Michigan, then is back under 60% against decent defenses.

SC made him look pretty average, and he picked up a ton of numbers in the 2nd half of that ass-whooping Alabama laid on them...31-0 at half.

I'm NOT saying he sucks, but I'd sure like to see him play another 3 months before I declare him a cant-miss NFL QB, just because we happen to need one...

OnTheWarpath15 10-06-2008 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5089855)
Well that it's then, our team is to stupid to develop a QB, we should all go be fans of other teams.

See ya.

Don't let the door his you on the ass...

Great rebuttal, by the way.

I tell you your mancrush has been average, and the best you can do is this?

Disappointing.

Mecca 10-06-2008 08:56 PM

I'm sorry Stafford made more NFL throws in that Alabama game than I've seen from Sam Bradford in 2 years.

Some people don't even know what they are suppose to be looking for.

And hey call him my mancrush all you want, atleast he isn't a brittle failure like yours is.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:54 AM.

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