Chiefs To those who wanted to rebuild - Page 4

Chiefnj2 · 10-20-2008, 09:39 PM

What changed? This question isn't intended for those who wanted Herm gone for years. It is for those that embraced the rebuild when you first heard about it this offseason. I'd say half the board was excited about the prospect of a real rebuild. People were thrilled that the team was going to go young and most people said they would be able to deal with a bad year as long as the young players got a lot of playing time and showed some improvement by the end of the year.

I know the Chiefs have been getting their asses kicked, but if you were for a complete Herm rebuild, why have you jumped ship? Why is your patience exhausted after 6 games?

Coach · 10-20-2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

10-20-2008, 09:39 PM
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $6654388	To those who wanted to rebuild What changed? This question isn't intended for those who wanted Herm gone for years. It is for those that embraced the rebuild when you first heard about it this offseason. I'd say half the board was excited about the prospect of a real rebuild. People were thrilled that the team was going to go young and most people said they would be able to deal with a bad year as long as the young players got a lot of playing time and showed some improvement by the end of the year. I know the Chiefs have been getting their asses kicked, but if you were for a complete Herm rebuild, why have you jumped ship? Why is your patience exhausted after 6 games?
Posts: 22,541

10-20-2008, 11:41 PM	#56
007 Shaken. Not stirred. Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Casino cash: $12160126 VARSITY	I am still waiting for a real rebuild. __________________ My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s just as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.
Posts: 65,734

10-20-2008, 11:45 PM	#57
TrickyNicky My Black Friend, Alan Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Manhattan Casino cash: $10007047	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?
Posts: 3,648