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

[NIUhuskies]

I like this kid, hes big, athletic and a helluva player. wouldnt mind grabbing him if he is there in the 4th or 5th round...

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Brees wouldn't have been any good to the Chiefs if he'd have been traded after his first few years just like he was in San Diego.

He wouldn't have been traded. The whole reason he was even let go was because of the development of Philip Rivers.

[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.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

He wouldn't have been traded. The whole reason he was even let go was because of the development of Philip Rivers.

The reason that Rivers was drafted was because the Chargers, after Brees struggled in his second season, decided that he was not the QB going forward.

The reason they let Brees walk was because of his shoulder injury and the investment they made in Rivers.

The fact is, they gave up on Brees too quickly, and the investment they made in Rivers put them in a position where they couldn't keep both.

[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 The Bad Guy

I just don't know how you can say that when Brees would have given us likely 10 years of production instead of the 3 that Green really gave.

I liked Trent Green, but you need more than 3 productive years out of a first rounder for it to be a win.

Brees wasn't "likely" to give anyone 10 years of production in the minds of the 32 or so teams that passed on him in the first round of his draft. Anyone "likely" to give a team 10 years of QB production is taken in the first round.

And Green had 4 productive years for the Chiefs. He could have had even more if it weren't for a cheap shot that effectively ended his career. Drew Brees isn't immune to catastrophic injury, he just hasn't had one yet.

[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.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by milkman

The reason that Rivers was drafted was because the Chargers, after Brees struggled in his second season, decided that he was not the QB going forward.

The reason they let Brees walk was because of his shoulder injury and the investment they made in Rivers.

The fact is, they gave up on Brees too quickly, and the investment they made in Rivers put them in a position where they couldn't keep both.

The Chiefs need to show similar foresight after Cassel, once again, proves he's not the answer.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

The Chiefs need to show similar foresight after Cassel, once again, proves he's not the answer.

I really don't want to put words in Milkmans mouth, but this method is what we have used to pretty much no avail over through the CP years. We built a team of great players, but were not able to put the QB in place with that great team to get the job done. In most cases, the true franchise QB's are taken at the top of round 1. No guarantees they will pan out... just like any other position... but that is where you get one.

Let's just say we draft defense heavy... and everything clicks... and we get out team up to our famous 8-8 to 9-7 position. We are now out of the top 5 position we have been in for the last 3 drafts. And up to this point, it appears that all 3 QB's selected (Ryan, Stafford, and Sanchez) are going to be legit QB's. We had an opportunity (yes it would have required a trade up to get two of them, but these things happen to the teams that value the QB spot) to get all three of them, but passed.

Like MM stated, if there is a QB that is valued by our staff to be a legit franchise QB, then we need to select him this year, regardless of Cassel.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Coogs

I really don't want to put words in Milkmans mouth, but this method is what we have used to pretty much no avail over through the CP years. We built a team of great players, but were not able to put the QB in place with that great team to get the job done. In most cases, the true franchise QB's are taken at the top of round 1. No guarantees they will pan out... just like any other position... but that is where you get one.

Let's just say we draft defense heavy... and everything clicks... and we get out team up to our famous 8-8 to 9-7 position. We are now out of the top 5 position we have been in for the last 3 drafts. And up to this point, it appears that all 3 QB's selected (Ryan, Stafford, and Sanchez) are going to be legit QB's. We had an opportunity (yes it would have required a trade up, but these things happen to the teams that value the QB spot) to get all three of them but passed.

Like MM stated, if there is a QB that is valued by our staff to be a legit franchise QB, then we need to select him this year, regardless of Cassel.

I am expecting 8-8 in '10. Anything else is a complete failure.

So let's say this comes to fruition, even with this middling draft position, we should have an opportunity to move up and snag a Gabbert next season. I think concerns about coming from the spread will mean he goes somewhere in the 5-10 range.

We need to make this happen. Good teams create opportunities for themselves.

That said, if our current staff believes Clausen can be "the" guy, we SHOULD take him if he falls.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

The Chiefs need to show similar foresight after Cassel, once again, proves he's not the answer.

If Cassel were rookie going into his second year, I would suggest that giving up on him this early would be mistake.

But Cassel, while only going into his third year as a starter, is still a guy that with 5 years in the league, whose upside is game manager at best.

If he doesn't make huge strides next season, finding a QB at the top of the draft becomes a priority.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by milkman

If Cassel were rookie going into his second year, I would suggest that giving up on him this early would be mistake.

But Cassel, while only going into his third year as a starter, is still a guy that with 5 years in the league, whose upside is game manager at best.

If he doesn't make huge strides next season, finding a QB at the top of the draft becomes a priority.

We're at this point now. Or at least we should be.

I know the bitch is ugly, so I don't need to see the results from her "amazing" makeover to reaffirm what I already know. But I'm sure Pioli thinks Weis is going to polish that turd pretty effectively this offseason.

I'm worried that Scott doesn't smell the shit, though.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

We're at this point now. Or at least we should be.

I know the bitch is ugly, so I don't need to see the results from her "amazing" makeover to reaffirm what I already know. But I'm sure Pioli thinks Weis is going to polish that turd pretty effectively this offseason.

I'm worried that Scott doesn't smell the shit, though.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

We're at this point now. Or at least we should be.

I know the bitch is ugly, so I don't need to see the results from her "amazing" makeover to reaffirm what I already know. But I'm sure Pioli thinks Weis is going to polish that turd pretty effectively this offseason.

I'm worried that Scott doesn't smell the shit, though.

The problem is that, while you already know the bitch is ugly, the only available place to look for a better looking bitch at this point in time is 20 dollar hooker convention.

Next year at this time, the high priced call girls will be available.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by milkman

The problem is that, while you already know the bitch is ugly, the only available place to look for a better looking bitch at this point in time is 20 dollar hooker convention.

Next year at this time, the high priced call girls will be available.

I'm good with throwing a little bit of coin at a lesser skank, later in the night, this year, and going the whole hog in '11.