I damn gaurantee you if the draft were next week Pioli passes on Sanchez with the 3rd pick with what he saw today and takes Aaron Curry. Curry is far safer and Pioli's rep is on the line with making his 1st pick as the new Chiefs GM and you better not miss with the 3rd pick as a new GM. Sanchez at 'THIS' point is too risky for him IMO.

Matt Ryan was not that risky of a pick last yr because he started far more games and did not play behind a "stellar of a line" performing just as well as Sanchez did this yr. Ryan had it alot tougher IMO which showcased his metal being tested more and passing with flying colors. Sanchez has not had enough time to showcase this IMO.

the nfl.com's clips suck arse. They show guys running the 40 but not making throws.

Pat White clearly had the best day which gives you an idea of how bad the QB class is this year.

No, there was nothing dire. He simply failed to live up to the hype. It happens. However, because he went into the combine as the #2 QB, he needed to be better than he was.

NFLN only showed the group that Sanchez was in, the 1st group had few if any highlights.

Well you didnt watch a single USC game then.

I think it's time to just torch this ****ing thread. You three are goddamned idiots.

You're right. The Chiefs should just ignore all workouts and evaluations completely and draft a QB no matter what, because there's nobody else worth taking. They should definitely back in to the pick. That's a great idea. So if all the scouts, including the Chiefs', grade Sanchez as a #15 pick at best (hypothetically, of course), they should take him no matter what.

There are other options. If the Chiefs move to a 3-4, BJ Raji is not "another defensive tackle." He becomes the only player on the Chiefs' roster capable of playing nose tackle--the most important position on defense in a 3-4. If the Chiefs like Crabtree or Maclin enough, those are two players who play important positions under a coach who loves receivers. If you go to the school of "you can never have too many cornerbacks" argument, than Malcolm Jenkins also becomes an option.

All of a sudden, it doesn't sound so stupid to even consider trading out of the #3 pick anymore. Does it?

Safe means nothing. Eliminate this from the lexicon.

If we just hired a GM who is interested in making the "safe" pick because of job security, we've been sold a bill of goods and all the success in NE was because of the Hoodie.

so many 'true fans' showing up ..........









and they aren't even Chiefs fans. :hmmm:

Info? Just watch the combine and then see if you will want to spend your 1st rd pick "putting your beak around Sanchez's cock"?:shrug: Maybe just a bad day but no 1st rd performance that is for sure.

And where do I "watch the combine at"?

While that's true, given that most teams have taken a gamble on a first round QB the last 10 years, I don't think it's accurate to say that taking a quarterback in the first round is a risk (as I so often hear). It's a pretty conservative play, actually.

Hell no it doesn't and quite frankly with only 7 picks and no surefire Franchise QB's sitting there I hope the hell Pioli trades down to acquire more picks either picking up another 1st or a couple of 2nds or 3rds.

Pioli says that the combine is a part of the process, but that how they performed on the field in games is far more important in the evaluation process.

Hopefully Pioli will start shopping that 3rd pick by playing some good NFL Poker.

NFL Network FTW!!!!!!!11111


i have all the workouts taped ... they break them down by position and then show them all together

Look, dipshit, I wasn't putting the guy down. Sanchez wasn't horrible, but he needed to be better because of his perceived position. Because he wasn't, his performance is hurting his standing, be it by a little or a lot. As I've noted in other posts, this can be overcome by having a good pro day.

Just who the **** do you think is going to want to trade up, and who the hell do you think they will want to trade up for?

I don't have a subscription to NFL Network.

Akili,Alex, Joey, David, Tim etc..... do I go on? This last yr was a pleasant surprise for sure.

Left Tackles!! :rolleyes:

sucks to be you, bitch

It's a tricky thing to measure with a guy like Sanchez because you're largely grading him on potential. I agree with the idea of trading down if you don't like Sanchez, and I think there's got to be at least some reasonable doubt that the Chiefs might not take him. But I also know the workout is a small part of the equation--Ryan didn't look sharp in workouts last year either. I don't know the answer to whether Sanchez or Stafford is a franchise QB. Just trying to point out that it's not a slam dunk top 5 pick.

Yeah, cause there's such a shortage of LT propspects in this draft.

JFC!

Right back at ya' you pussy sack of shit.

maybe you can call your buddy Dirty Sanchez and suck his dick for some extra money so you can get NFL Network

When there are 5-7 OTs who will carry a first round grade, no one is going to trade up to 3, forfeiting nearly their entire draft, to take one when the difference between the top tier tackles is razor thin.

This is what happens when dumbasses post about the draft when they've never watched any college football or studied team needs and positional value.

Or maybe I can send him to Kansas to **** your old lady in the ass while I make you watch, and then knock your teeth down your ****ing throat for shits and giggles afterwards!

How'd THAT be, mother****er?

You are right there probably 6 that will probably go 1st rd and there is the upper tier of that grp (2-3 guys) that will go in the top 10. You start playing the poker with the upper tier LT's and Sanchez cards you have with those teams that are interested in those players in hopes to acquire picks by trading down.

Given who's behind us?
Seattle could look for a LT given that Walter Jones will be 36 going into 2009, which makes Eugene Monroe or Jason Smith potential trade targets. They'll definitely highly consider a WR like Crabtree or Maclin, whomever grades higher.Any one of the teams behind us could get hot and heavy over Aaron Curry. Any team that badly needs a nose tackle could be willing to give up a ton of picks as well if that could get them a guy like BJ Raji. The Raiders, Bengals, and Jaguars are three teams that could be interested in leapfrogging Seattle for one of those guys.

They don't have to trade up when 7 OTs went in the first round last year, and there are 5-7 who will go this year.

It's a flooded market. Supply outpaces demand. No one is going to trade up for these guys when they can stand pat, Keep several other high picks, and get an LT who is, at worst, 95% of the player as the guy they would have traded up for.

The Giants traded up for Eli Manning when they could have easily taken Philip Rivers in a draft class that was one of the deepest QB classes of all time. If you want the best, you get the best. Given how important the LT position is, if Monroe or Smith grade out very high relative to other tackles, why wouldn't you want the best in the business?

Christ, for all the people talking about "taking risks", you guys sure play the draft completely by the book.

1 cover backer taken in the top 3 in the last 20 years, and people are not only going to draft him at 3, but trade up to draft him at 3, and make him the highest paid LB in the league? :spock:

1 team in the top 11 runs a 3-4 and needs a NT. No one is trading their whole draft for BJ Raji.

No one is trading up to 3 for a 6'1" WR with a broken foot and speed ?s who comes from a spread offense, and Jeremy Maclin isn't going anywhere near 3.

Giants did draft Phillp Rivers.

ROFL

Are you going to put the ****ing hat on, Eli? Put the ****ing hat on!

Thankyou :thumb::thumb::thumb:

Before the draft, Manning was considered the best QB prospect by a wide margin.

The difference between the top LTs in this draft, as Hamas has already pointed out, is razor thin.

Matt Light
Max Starks
David Diehl

vs.

Willie Pace
Walter Jones
Anthony Munoz


The top 3 played the 2nd most position on the 0, and won the Super Bowl. The bottom 3 are among the 5 greatest to ever play their position, and have won 0.

Which position is more important?

Why might the Giants want to trade up in their situation?

Rivers had huge ?s surrounding his sidearm/funky throwing motion. Eli Manning was as polished of a product as you'd find.

You don't need an elite LT to win a Super Bowl. Hell, he doesn't even have to be anything more than good. You need a franchise QB to win the Super Bowl, and that's why NY made their move.

Hell, the top prospect by many accounts just shit all over himself this weekend.

Yes he did but don't be surprised if he is still the 1st taken he is 'that' good. You play that card if he is there and you know you don't want him.

Willie Anderson or Orlando Pace?

But again. Why are we so stuck on this idea that a team has to give up their entire draft to move up to a top 3 in a weak draft class and reluctantly take a guy they knew they could get 4 or 5 spots down? ESPECIALLY when there are maybe 3 or 4 guys that you would be fairly equally happy with?

I don't get it. If you don't like either Sanchez or Stafford, chances are that if you trade down to 5 or 6, you probably still get a guy you highly covet. And you get picks on the side.

Again, for a board that keeps complaining about never taking risks, I don't understand why there is such a fear to move a little away from the draft chart if you don't like what you have on your plate. Can I again bring up that the only trade into the top 3, Rivers-Eli only happened because San Diego knocked off a huge chunk of trade compensation value? Think San Diego regrets that trade? I sure don't. The Giants don't either.

instead of swearing at people perhaps you would like to actually add something to the football conversation
Posted via Mobile Device

If I'm a betting man which I am not but if forced to I would say either we will take Curry or trade down at this point. And please fellow Chieftains who are sooooooooooooo desperate for QB pick with our 3rd pick pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease don't be surprised if Pioli trades down or takes Curry.

This is a terrible example to use to prove anything.

Manning told the people in that organization to go **** themselves. They possessed zero leverage, and thus this was a special case.

Oh....The irony.

You should bet your life savings.

Hey what about Max Unger with our 2nd rd pick if he is there?

Uncle Leo????
Posted via Mobile Device

We should trade down for more picks.

Dane's offered all of this casino cash that the Chiefs would take Sanchez with their pick and no one has bit.

Yes I meant to preface that if we could trade down and get picks but I feel we would have a good solid C for 10yrs plus. Yes if we could trade down and get 2 firsts picking up a DE and LB and then Unger we would be looking good!:D

Hell with that.

I think we should down again and again, until we have all the picks in the 7th round.

We could find players to fill all of our needs.

How are we going to get 2 first round picks by trading down?

Another idiot heard from. He never said anything close to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

ROFL REP!

I come over here to get relief from the reeruns that pay me, and the reeruns over here are even dumber.

You can't trade down when no one is going to trade up and give you fair value, especially when there aren't any good QB prospects next year, and the draft is loaded with D.

This is the year to get a quarterback, this is the year we're in position to get one.

If we trade down to 7 or 8, I guaran****ingtee someone will trade in front of us to grab Sanchez.

Then, what do we do? We're out of our QB and we've picked up another pick in a bad draft for defensive talent.

Moreover, if you do trade down, you also destroy any chance you have of drafting Stafford if Detroit does something stupid and drafts Monroe #1 overall and trades for Cassell.

I never said he said anything close to that.

He was joking.
I was joking.

Thanks for playing, dumbass.

My, your special brand of Gridiron Geniusness is just ON FIRE TONIGHT!


Go jump in that fire.

ROFL

I think we draft Sanchez.

ROFL

Good one.

FAX

Please floss your ass crack with piano wire.

I think we trade up to #1 and take Stafford. Detroit gets our 2nd and saves several million.

ROFL

I think we should just trade down everytime until we have 35 7th round picks! 1 of them has to be Tom Brady!

And way to many people have listened to blowhards like Mark Schelerth on ESPN talk about how offensive linemen are more important than QB's I'm sure he'd have no interest in trying to make the position he played look more important.

That's the best idea I've heard yet, Mr. milkman. Awesome concept and addresses a lot of concerns.

There's just one problem, though. I've done some calculations based on the draft value chart (or, as we in the field call it, the DVC) and assuming that we receive comparable value when we trade down both the first and the second time, we would wind up with a total of 112 picks in the 7th round and there aren't that many.

FAX

My favorite hypothesis this off-season has been from some posters suggesting, and seriously I mind you, that KC not turn in its card on time.

It doesn't get more chickenshit than this.

Sancez seems to be the leader we are looking for-the new face of the Chiefs.

We need D help, but I think we take a QB.

Haven't you been paying attention to chiefzilla?

I think the best strategy is to just recruit and sign directly out of Haskell Native College; we can be politically correct, save a ton of money, and keep the risk factor low in the process!

I just had a conference call with Spit Bubble, and he says it's a go.

I bet we stay put and pay the money-we have the cap room.

There is no logic, these are people that act like Drew Bledsoe was never good which is stupid.

Draft chart is tha debil.

What?

It's a bold move and a stroke of genious(cps).

REP!

Yes, Pioli is known for outside-the-box thinking, and we should embrace him pulling a Huard on draft day.

Well, one thing we could do is trade down twice, then trade up three times.

I don't know what that would leave us with position-wise, but I'll bet we wind up with quite a few quarterbacks that way.

FAX

He was good. But not good enough.
Posted via Mobile Device