Your Top 5 picks for the #3 overall. - Page 11

Direckshun · 04-07-2009, 02:06 PM

Who do you want the Chiefs to take with the #3 overall?

Seriously. I want you to see what ChiefsPlanet regards as elite, #3 talent.

All choices are welcome here. This is just me picking your brain. This thread is largely debate-free.

Thanks in advance for the honesty.

crazycoffey · 04-08-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I honestly wouldn't be shocked by anything Pioli does.

I'm still not convinced he didn't trade for Cassel to get through 2009, let a young QB sit for a year, then trade Cassel in 2010.

Or, as mentioned, they could pick one of the QB's and trade Cassel on draft day.

They could pick one of the QB's and trade THEM on draft day.

He could take a non-QB at #3.

He could trade down.

Nothing would surprise me.

I concur, in fact - we should be able to unite under this thought. Pioli is bringing many options to the table for draft day, this season, and building options for next season already. I personally, love it

**The Franchise** · 04-08-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

A new GM asking an owner to pay someone 15 million to babysit for one year is pretty far fetched.

Not when you have $50 million in cap space and you have to get up the minimum amount spent.

crazycoffey · 04-08-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

A new GM asking an owner to pay someone 15 million to babysit for one year is pretty far fetched.

I think it's an effort of fair trade between the new GM and his new boss.

"let me bring in my guy, we pay heavier than I really want at this time, but if he does well, we can trade/sign him later." It's realistic, leaves options options open, and betters the team, more than signing matt to a long term deal and having something bad happen.

Chiefnj2 · 04-08-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pestilenceaf23

Not when you have $50 million in cap space and you have to get up the minimum amount spent.

Spend money on guys that have a chance of being on the team when it is ready to make a run, or waste it on a guy you plan on flipping in one year?? Tough one. NO GM wants to waste 15 million dollars.

RustShack · 04-08-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Spend money on guys that have a chance of being on the team when it is ready to make a run, or waste it on a guy you plan on flipping in one year?? Tough one. NO GM wants to waste 15 million dollars.

It wouldn't be wasted... Cassel would be our starting QB for the year...

Coogs · 04-08-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Spend money on guys that have a chance of being on the team when it is ready to make a run, or waste it on a guy you plan on flipping in one year?? Tough one. NO GM wants to waste 15 million dollars.

What guys are left out there that are worth spending big money on for more than one season? Peppers is going to cost draft picks. Holt? Any players on our own roster that should be given contract extentions? You have to be careful with setting presidence with the last one.

**dirk digler** · 04-08-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I honestly wouldn't be shocked by anything Pioli does.

I'm still not convinced he didn't trade for Cassel to get through 2009, let a young QB sit for a year, then trade Cassel in 2010.

Or, as mentioned, they could pick one of the QB's and trade Cassel on draft day.

They could pick one of the QB's and trade THEM on draft day.

He could take a non-QB at #3.

He could trade down.

Nothing would surprise me.

I agree and the days leading up to the draft is going to be exciting.

With that said I wouldn't read too much into the Chiefs not signing Cassel to an extension. The current CBA is about to expire and there will be a strike so I am sure that plays into it plus in those other examples those teams needed to get cap space so a renegoitated deal makes sense. The Chiefs are probably at the minimum required cap space so the urgency isn't there to get a deal done plus they can always franchise him next year again.

htismaqe · 04-08-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

A new GM asking an owner to pay someone 15 million to babysit for one year is pretty far fetched.

Well, NOT signing him to a new deal after they traded for him is also pretty far-fetched, considering I couldn't find one example of it every happening before.

htismaqe · 04-08-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

With that said I wouldn't read too much into the Chiefs not signing Cassel to an extension. The current CBA is about to expire and there will be a strike so I am sure that plays into it plus in those other examples those teams needed to get cap space so a renegoitated deal makes sense. The Chiefs are probably at the minimum required cap space so the urgency isn't there to get a deal done plus they can always franchise him next year again.

By the same token, we should read too LITTLE into the Chiefs not signing him to a deal.

This idea that Cassel is the starting QB and there's no other possibility is absurd and will be absurd until the day he signs.

Saccopoo · 04-08-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

There are Cassel backers right here on this forum saying he'll never be Peyton Manning/Tom Brady, but more of a Matt Hasselbeck type QB. I'm more confident Stafford or Sanchez has the POTENTIAL to be a top 3 QB in the NFL than does Cassel.

I seem to remember a guy named Hasselbeck being in the Super Bowl a few years back, with a legit chance to win it baring some questionable calls. If Cassel is that level of mediocrity, I'll take it.

And again, I want to know what makes you think that either Sanchez or Stafford has the potential to be a TOP 3 quarterback in this league, let alone be better than Cassel, who just went 11-5 in his first year as a starter? Please, pretty please with sugar on top, enlighten me.

Quote:

You don't value the future of a long-term prospect at QB? No, Cassel will likely start this year. If he does well, he will start the year after that, too. But if he's mediocre, we're pretty much stuck with him. I don't know of many other good opportunities to find a QB like Stafford or Sanchez, where we can find ourselves with a draft position high enough to get the guy we want.

Who is this "WE?" Seems like the guys in charge of the Chiefs were pretty pleased to get Cassel. Seems like McDaniels preferred Cassel over a young, cannon-armed "franchise" quarterback. Seems like everyone prior to the Chiefs trade for Cassel that knew anything about football stated that if a team wanted to get a qb of the future for this next season, Matt Cassel was the guy because you didn't want to risk it on an unproven rookie. So, I ask again, what qualities does either Stafford or Sanchez possess that makes them a more attractive option than Matt Cassel at quarterback?

**dirk digler** · 04-08-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

By the same token, we should read too LITTLE into the Chiefs not signing him to a deal.

This idea that Cassel is the starting QB and there's no other possibility is absurd and will be absurd until the day he signs.

I think if they don't draft a QB fairly early I think it would be safe to assume Cassel will be the starting QB on opening day.

Saccopoo · 04-08-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You need freaking glasses, dude. More than half of those guys are complete BUSTS.

And I'm sorry, but you're putting Leonard Davis in the "good" category. That's flat-out laughable.

Then you should make it your mission in life to go tell all the NFL players this past season who voted him into the Pro Bowl that they don't know jack shit because you think he sucks.

Mecca · 04-08-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

Then you should make it your mission in life to go tell all the NFL players this past season who voted him into the Pro Bowl that they don't know jack shit because you think he sucks.

You're reading comprehension sucks.

A player drafted in the top 5 to be a LT that ends up as a guard pro bowl or not is a bust. If you drafted a guard top 5 you'd be the laughing stock of the entire ****ing league, got it?

DJ's left nut · 04-08-2009, 03:36 PM

1) Stafford
2) Sanchez
3) Crabtree
4) Raji (if clean)
5) Curry
6) Brown (if Raji is a too stupid to stay off the hippy lettuce during the combine)

Saccopoo · 04-08-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

You're reading comprehension sucks.

A player drafted in the top 5 to be a LT that ends up as a guard pro bowl or not is a bust. If you drafted a guard top 5 you'd be the laughing stock of the entire ****ing league, got it?

Go tell it to the Cardinals. They drafted him and played him at guard for his first three seasons in the league. Seems to me that they drafted him as a guard, played him as a guard, Dallas signed him to play guard, and subsequently he made the Pro Bowl playing as a guard.

All I'm saying is that he was in the Pro Bowl last season and that other players typically don't vote guys in who suck. And "busts" don't usually end up in the Pro Bowl. So, perhaps I do have some comprehension problems where I'm equating the Pro Bowl to not being a bust. I guess others around here have a different understanding of what being in the Pro Bowl means.

04-07-2009, 02:06 PM
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $2033447	Your Top 5 picks for the #3 overall. Who do you want the Chiefs to take with the #3 overall? Seriously. I want you to see what ChiefsPlanet regards as elite, #3 talent. All choices are welcome here. This is just me picking your brain. This thread is largely debate-free. Thanks in advance for the honesty.
Posts: 59,693

04-08-2009, 03:36 PM	#164
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $-880901	1) Stafford 2) Sanchez 3) Crabtree 4) Raji (if clean) 5) Curry 6) Brown (if Raji is a too stupid to stay off the hippy lettuce during the combine)
Posts: 66,871