CMU QB Dan LeFevour says he has had in-depth talks w/ Chiefs

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by milkman

The window for Flacco should really begin to open next season, assuming he is the QB many think he is, and that window would be open for the nest 12 to 15 years.

The window for Sanchise should open in the '11 season, and should be open for 12 to 15 years.

Averaged out, the window for a first round QB that your team selects and develops is about 13.5 years, and we got, at best, 8 years for two first round picks, essentially 19 years less than two first round picks should give us.

You're talking about the QB's window. Dan Marino was great for well over a decade, but his team didn't have a legitimate window of Super Bowl contention for that entire period. For example, from 1986 through 1989, they didn't have a winning season mainly because their defenses were window closers. The Chiefs defenses of the Vermeil era kept the Chiefs from realizing the potential of Trent Green's offenses, but even with those defenses, the Chiefs were winning.

No one would confuse Trent Green with Dan Marino in terms of value to his team, and if Flacco or Sanchez end up being top notch QBs over the course of a long career, their teams will have put themselves well ahead of the game. But neither of those guys can be considered Dan Marinos yet either and IMO, they still have to prove that they can even become Trent Greens.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You're talking about the QB's window. Dan Marino was great for well over a decade, but his team didn't have a legitimate window of Super Bowl contention for that entire period. For example, from 1986 through 1989, they didn't have a winning season mainly because their defenses were window closers. The Chiefs defenses of the Vermeil era kept the Chiefs from realizing the potential of Trent Green's offenses, but even with those defenses, the Chiefs were winning.

No one would confuse Trent Green with Dan Marino in terms of value to his team, and if Flacco or Sanchez end up being top notch QBs over the course of a long career, their teams will have put themselves well ahead of the game. But neither of those guys can be considered Dan Marinos yet either and IMO, they still have to prove that they can even become Trent Greens.

I am talking about making long term investment at the most improtant position on the filed.

QBs don't win championships by themselves, but having a top notch young QB in place gives you the opportunity to find and open the window for a much longer stretch than trading for or signing a backup that is already approaching 30.

If the Chiefs had drafted Brees, rather than trading for Green, they would not only have had the QB for that window, but also have that QB for the next window.

Had they built the team the right way to start with, using the draft rather than trading for and signing players that were on the downside of thoer careers, they could have opened a window for 10-12 years, rather than simply have that 4 year window.

That was why I still consider the trade for Montana a mistake.

They had the talent in place to compete for the better part of a decade, but by trading for Montana, and not having a better contingency plan in place in case of injury and for his retirement, they essentially opeend a two year window.

That, to me, was sheer stupidity and piss poor planning.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by milkman

I am talking about making long term investment at the most improtant position on the filed.

QBs don't win championships by themselves, but having a top notch young QB in place gives you the opportunity to find and open the window for a much longer stretch than trading for or signing a backup that is already approaching 30.

If the Chiefs had drafted Brees, rather than trading for Green, they would not only have had the QB for that window, but also have that QB for the next window.

Had they built the team the right way to start with, using the draft rather than trading for and signing players that were on the downside of thoer careers, they could have opened a window for 10-12 years, rather than simply have that 4 year window.

That was why I still consider the trade for Montana a mistake.

They had the talent in place to compete for the better part of a decade, but by trading for Montana, and not having a better contingency plan in place in case of injury and for his retirement, they essentially opeend a two year window.

That, to me, was sheer stupidity and piss poor planning.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by milkman

I am talking about making long term investment at the most improtant position on the filed.

QBs don't win championships by themselves, but having a top notch young QB in place gives you the opportunity to find and open the window for a much longer stretch than trading for or signing a backup that is already approaching 30.

If the Chiefs had drafted Brees, rather than trading for Green, they would not only have had the QB for that window, but also have that QB for the next window.

Had they built the team the right way to start with, using the draft rather than trading for and signing players that were on the downside of thoer careers, they could have opened a window for 10-12 years, rather than simply have that 4 year window.

That was why I still consider the trade for Montana a mistake.

They had the talent in place to compete for the better part of a decade, but by trading for Montana, and not having a better contingency plan in place in case of injury and for his retirement, they essentially opeend a two year window.

That, to me, was sheer stupidity and piss poor planning.

I don't have a problem with your philosophy and, in hindsight at least, I agree that the contingency plan of using the 49ers bench as your QB pipeline was horrible, but in terms of expected value (meaning you have to account for the failures as well as the successes), I still think both trades were wins for the Chiefs.

Is there a QB you think the Chiefs should draft this year with the #5 pick?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't have a problem with your philosophy and, in hindsight at least, I agree that the contingency plan of using the 49ers bench as your QB pipeline was horrible, but in terms of expected value (meaning you have to account for the failures as well as the successes), I still think both trades were wins for the Chiefs.

Is there a QB you think the Chiefs should draft this year with the #5 pick?

I'm not sure that your question has any value in this discussion.

I don't like any of the "first round" QBs in this draft.

However, if the Cheifs believe there's a QB that has that kind of value, and they pass on him because they already have Cassel in place, then I think they are playing a osing hand.

I believe that Cassel has the potential to be a solid game manager, but if I also believed that Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford were potential franchise QBs, I'd draft them, Cassel be damned.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by milkman

I'm not sure that your question has any value in this discussion.

I don't like any of the "first round" QBs in this draft.

However, if the Cheifs believe there's a QB that has that kind of value, and they pass on him because they already have Cassel in place, then I think they are playing a osing hand.

I believe that Cassel has the potential to be a solid game manager, but if I also believed that Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford were potential franchise QBs, I'd draft them, Cassel be damned.

The question has value because, in this case, it got you to acknowledge that reasonable people can differ on whether any given draft class has a guy that you can expect to be a 10-12 year window-creating franchise QB. We can agree on the idea that if such a prospect is available then any team should draft him at the very first opportunity unless they already have their 10-12 year guy and he's young enough that it's too early to draft a replacement. (And in some cases, maybe you draft the replacement anyway and trade one of the two).

It's too easy to look back and say that the Chiefs screwed up in a particular year by passing on a guy who ended up panning out. Maybe you've got an exceptional eye for QBs so I'm leaving you out of this, but with the availability of hindsight there are a lot of people out there who would say that they wanted Drew Brees with our first in 2001 without admitting that they also wanted Jim Druckenmiller with our first in 1997. All I'm saying is that picking a franchise QB isn't as easy as so many people around here make it out to be so the question becomes how much of a flyer are you willing to take? In hindsight, Drew Brees is arguably a better pick than Trent Green, but Tony Gonzalez is unarguably a better pick than Jim Druckenmiller.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The question has value because, in this case, it got you to acknowledge that reasonable people can differ on whether any given draft class has a guy that you can expect to be a 10-12 year window-creating franchise QB. We can agree on the idea that if such a prospect is available then any team should draft him at the very first opportunity unless they already have their 10-12 year guy and he's young enough that it's too early to draft a replacement. (And in some cases, maybe you draft the replacement anyway and trade one of the two).

It's too easy to look back and say that the Chiefs screwed up in a particular year by passing on a guy who ended up panning out. Maybe you've got an exceptional eye for QBs so I'm leaving you out of this, but with the availability of hindsight there are a lot of people out there who would say that they wanted Drew Brees with our first in 2001 without admitting that they also wanted Jim Druckenmiller with our first in 1997. All I'm saying is that picking a franchise QB isn't as easy as so many people around here make it out to be so the question becomes how much of a flyer are you willing to take? In hindsight, Drew Brees is arguably a better pick than Trent Green, but Tony Gonzalez is unarguably a better pick than Jim Druckenmiller.

2001 is a messy example. Media members saw Grandpa's board, and Brees was listed at the top.

Holmes, however, has said in interviews that the team told him that if the Green acquisition didn't go down, they were going to select McAllister and thus wouldn't sign Priest.

Who knows...

And you're right about the duplicity of some using hindsight. But here's all that matters to me: the upside of drafting and developing your own franchise QB is so great that this franchise MUST take that risk.

Yeah, Druckenmiller sucked and we had a HOF TE. A TE, mind you. Personally, I'll take the risk to acquire a franchise QB every. single. day. Assuming I believe said player grades out appropriately, of course.

If that means I miss out on a TE or a G, I'm sure many in the KC market will lament it, but...dems da breaks.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The question has value because, in this case, it got you to acknowledge that reasonable people can differ on whether any given draft class has a guy that you can expect to be a 10-12 year window-creating franchise QB. We can agree on the idea that if such a prospect is available then any team should draft him at the very first opportunity unless they already have their 10-12 year guy and he's young enough that it's too early to draft a replacement. (And in some cases, maybe you draft the replacement anyway and trade one of the two).

It's too easy to look back and say that the Chiefs screwed up in a particular year by passing on a guy who ended up panning out. Maybe you've got an exceptional eye for QBs so I'm leaving you out of this, but with the availability of hindsight there are a lot of people out there who would say that they wanted Drew Brees with our first in 2001 without admitting that they also wanted Jim Druckenmiller with our first in 1997. All I'm saying is that picking a franchise QB isn't as easy as so many people around here make it out to be so the question becomes how much of a flyer are you willing to take? In hindsight, Drew Brees is arguably a better pick than Trent Green, but Tony Gonzalez is unarguably a better pick than Jim Druckenmiller.

Here's the thing.

Nothing I say or do really matters.

The fact is, I didn't like Brees in that draft.

I never thought he'd be anything more than a marginal starter, at best.

But it's not my job to make these decisions, and according to reports, the Chiefs had Brees at the top of their draft board until they traded for Green.

I didn't like the trade for Green either, because I don't like short term solutions to the QB position (or most positions for that matter).

I bitched about the decision, and had they not traded for Green, I would have bitched about the decision to draft Brees.

But, when it's all said and done, I would have gotten over the decision to draft Brees, given what he has become.

Now that it's all said and done as it relates to Green, I still bitch about that trade, because in the end, it turned out to be a short term solution, as I expected.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by milkman

Here's the thing.

Nothing I say or do really matters.

The fact is, I didn't like Brees in that draft.

I never thought he'd be anything more than a marginal starter, at best.

But it's not my job to make these decisions, and according to reports, the Chiefs had Brees at the top of their draft board until they traded for Green.

I didn't like the trade for Green either, because I don't like short term solutions to the QB position (or most positions for that matter).

I bitched about the decision, and had they not traded for Green, I would have bitched about the decision to draft Brees.

But, when it's all said and done, I would have gotten over the decision to draft Brees, given what he has become.

Now that it's all said and done as it relates to Green, I still bitch about that trade, because in the end, it turned out to be a short term solution, as I expected.

That's admirably honest of you to admit that you weren't on the Brees bandwagon in advance (those who keep better track of these things might have already known it, I suppose, but still I commend you). I agree with you that it's the professional's job to recognize talent better than we do so to some extent hindsight criticism is deserved.

I'd always heard the story that the Chiefs would have drafted McAllister if they hadn't traded their 1st away so my conclusion is that they must not have thought of Brees as a legit franchise guy. To them, he appears to have been the best among a bunch of prospects.