Chiefs CMU QB Dan LeFevour says he has had in-depth talks w/ Chiefs - Page 14

NIUhuskies · 01-27-2010, 11:15 PM

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...

patteeu · 01-30-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

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** · 01-30-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

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.

patteeu · 01-30-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

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 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.

How many of those 3 QBs do you think will see a Super Bowl during their careers? My guess is that the over/under should be set at 1 and I'd bet the under.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

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.

As long as you pro-1st-round-QB guys hedge your arguments by leaving it up to the Chiefs staff beliefs, I don't see how you can be critical of them when they end up passing on a QB. It's a no-brainer to say that they should pick a QB if they believe he's a legit franchise guy. I'm sure that both Pioli and Peterson would completely agree with that so it's not really relevant to the argument.

The argument comes when you guys take the position that the Chiefs staff is too risk averse or when they don't recognize obvious talent the way you perhaps think that you do. For those in your camp that don't see a legit QB in this draft, the argument really disappears.

I know that you've advocated Clausen in the past so you're welcome to argue that the Chiefs are screwing up if they don't take him, but if they don't, time will be the only judge of who was right. So where do you stand on the #5 pick. Is there a legit QB or not? I'm with milkman in the "not" category so that leads me to embrace Chris Meck's approach of taking a project in a later round for this year.

**DeezNutz** · 01-30-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

As long as you pro-1st-round-QB guys hedge your arguments by leaving it up to the Chiefs staff beliefs, I don't see how you can be critical of them when they end up passing on a QB.

Pretty easy to do when Pioli has made far more poor decisions than good ones since arriving in town.

He's not getting the benefit of the doubt. And I don't believe in "honeymoon periods" or "evaluation years." That's a complete load of bullshit that too many are willing to swallow.

milkman · 01-30-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-30-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Pretty easy to do when Pioli has made far more poor decisions than good ones since arriving in town.

He's not getting the benefit of the doubt. And I don't believe in "honeymoon periods" or "evaluation years." That's a complete load of bullshit that too many are willing to swallow.

If that's the way you feel, you shouldn't be deferring to the Chiefs' staff in the way that a couple of other pro-1st-round-QB guys have in this thread. All I'm saying is that ANY staff that thinks there's a legit franchise QB available when they pick in the draft should and IMO would take him so I think we can all agree that the Chiefs should do it if that's what their evaluations lead them to believe.

patteeu · 01-30-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

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.

Coogs · 01-30-2010, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

How many of those 3 QBs do you think will see a Super Bowl during their careers? My guess is that the over/under should be set at 1 and I'd bet the under.

As long as you pro-1st-round-QB guys hedge your arguments by leaving it up to the Chiefs staff beliefs, I don't see how you can be critical of them when they end up passing on a QB. It's a no-brainer to say that they should pick a QB if they believe he's a legit franchise guy. I'm sure that both Pioli and Peterson would completely agree with that so it's not really relevant to the argument.

The argument comes when you guys take the position that the Chiefs staff is too risk averse or when they don't recognize obvious talent the way you perhaps think that you do. For those in your camp that don't see a legit QB in this draft, the argument really disappears.

I know that you've advocated Clausen in the past so you're welcome to argue that the Chiefs are screwing up if they don't take him, but if they don't, time will be the only judge of who was right. So where do you stand on the #5 pick. Is there a legit QB or not? I'm with milkman in the "not" category so that leads me to embrace Chris Meck's approach of taking a project in a later round for this year.

Clausen is still my top option. But I also think we lost out on him by beating the Broncos.

Won't be long and we will know on that. In fact, I'm thinking Suh, McCoy, Berry, and Clausen will go in some sort of order in the first 4 picks.

And, I am not comfortable with the Okung/Davis LT selection being tossed around. I'd rather someone like Buffalo or SF might swing a deal where we could drop down and get some more players in the top 50 rather than go one of those two that high. And I know I will be in the minority here, but then I would take a flier on Tebow in the 3rd if he is still there. Dude may have some technique issues, but he is definately a winner.

patteeu · 01-30-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

Clausen is still my top option. But I also think we lost out on him by beating the Broncos.

Won't be long and we will know on that. In fact, I'm thinking Suh, McCoy, Berry, and Clausen will go in some sort of order in the first 4 picks.

And, I am not comfortable with the Okung/Davis LT selection being tossed around. I'd rather someone like Buffalo or SF might swing a deal where we could drop down and get some more players in the top 50 rather than go one of those two that high. And I know I will be in the minority here, but then I would take a flier on Tebow in the 3rd if he is still there. Dude may have some technique issues, but he is definately a winner.

I wouldn't be upset with a Tebow pick on the second day. Surely they can make something out of him even if he doesn't pan out at QB.

milkman · 01-30-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

I wouldn't be upset with a Tebow pick on the second day. Surely they can make something out of him even if he doesn't pan out at QB.

No way in hell I want to waste a pick on a guy without a position.

He's a luxury pick, at best, and we have far too many holes to take a flyer on a luxury.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 01-30-2010, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

I wouldn't be upset with a Tebow pick on the second day. Surely they can make something out of him even if he doesn't pan out at QB.

Call Jacksonville; you might be able to work something out.

Not.

01-27-2010, 11:15 PM
NIUhuskies Veteran Join Date: May 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Casino cash: $7385050	CMU QB Dan LeFevour says he has had in-depth talks w/ Chiefs 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...
Posts: 1,040