Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy (Post 6528225)

That the biggest misconception is that their guys are always wide open. Go back and watch the Florida game again and the game he played this year before getting hurt. He was sqeezing the ball in tight spots, the WR's just couldn't hang on. I don't worry much about the spread, since the NFL uses it so much anyways.

The guy is accurate and I believe that's something you can't teach. Everything else he can learn.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6528210)

And Joe Flacco pissed his pants in the playoffs, Mark Sanchez didn't. I'll be the first one to say I wouldn't have started Sanchez right away, he was a 1 year college starter, I didn't consider him a ready to go from day 1 prospect, so he's going to have growing pains, Matt Ryan for example started about almost 30 more games in college.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6528228)

It's not just Sanchez, how many people argued against Ryan, against the guys this year, against whoever the QB we thought we'd have a chance to pick was?

At the time of the draft the QB is never good enough no matter who it is, Stafford was railed endlessly until it was realized he was going before us and then it turned to Sanchez.

It's about that position not Sanchez.

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy (Post 6528233)

It's because people think we can aquire one a different way which is possible (Romo, Warner). I think half the QB's in the playoffs were 1st round picks though, so of course that is the safer bet. I'm with you on that one bro. If one is there that you like pull the trigger. We should have a shot at one of them this year. If they like him do it.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6528238)

That position scares people for some reason, I love when the "it'll set us back 5 years if he's not good" argument is brought out, cause you know we've really been accomplishing a lot doing it this way for nearly 30 right?

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6528238)

That position scares people for some reason, I love when the "it'll set us back 5 years if he's not good" argument is brought out, cause you know we've really been accomplishing a lot doing it this way for nearly 30 right?

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6528229)

You should be worried because he'll have to learn how to properly take center snaps and drop back.

You know what else you can't teach? Durability, this is a guy who never got hit and as soon as he got hit, he got hurt.

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy (Post 6528281)

He can learn to drop back. 1/2 the time he throws will probably be out the gun anyways.

Durability worries me a bit. He needs to learn to avoid the big hits like Peyton manages to do.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 6528445)

Peyton's not a fragile ass QB. He's started every single game for the Colts since he was drafted.

Yeah, he avoids big hits, but he's also not Brodie Croyle.

To me, if you want Bradford, I'd say we've already got him on our roster.

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy (Post 6528512)

I can't ever really remember him taking a big hit. Not saying he is chicken shit at all, he is very good at avoiding the hits. You never see him take shots like Favre takes.

Yeah yeah, I've heard the Brodie comparisons before. I don't see it. Brodie has a stronger arm and isn't as accurate.

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 6527000)

If he was on KC Sanchez would have a rating of around 50. No great defense, no running game for 3/4 of the season and league leading dropped passes. This team would have gotten him killed - physically and mentally.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 6528221)

This is where you do yourself a disservice. Not wanting your chosen guy doesn't mean people don't want anybody. And it doesn't mean they're stupid. Or that they're homers. It just means that they have a difference of opinion.

Like I've probably dozens of times in the last year, I wouldn't have taken Sanchez high, because he was a junior (risky enough on its own) with one year as a starter. That's too many red flags for the top 5. If we were picking at the bottom of the round I'd have been more open to it. Either way, that doesn't mean I don't want a QB. I would have taken Stafford had he been there. I would have taken Ryan had he been there the year before. I might take Clausen this year, although to be honest there's something about him that just seems off to me. But I imagine Weis knows him better than anybody, so if they somehow did decide to pull the trigger on him, I'd imagine I'd be okay with it.

And I never in a million years would have traded for Cassel. That whole thing had 'disaster' written all over it from the start. I hope it works out in the end, I really do, but I never would have done it.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 6528938)

If he had been drafted by the Chiefs, the smart thing would have been to let him sit for a year.

Something many of us were saying should be done when we hoped he would be the pick before the trade for Cassel.

I don't get why that is so hard for some dumbasses to grasp.

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 6533365)

Sit behind who? Croyle? How long would that have lasted 3 weeks?