Why I Never Want The Chiefs To Take A QB In Round 1

[BigCatDaddy]

I'll start.

Because there will be better ones next year!

[suds79]

Take a Guard at that 11 spot and we could have the best offensive line in the league!


That's the goal.

[Two-Twenty]

We have Matthew Castle

[keg in kc]

People are cramming different kinds of quarterbacks into the same discussion.

If they're ever going to take a shot at a real franchise caliber first round quarterback in the first round, they're going to have to finish last or next-to-last in the league, or they're going to have to sell the farm and make a move into the top 2 spots. Because that's what it takes. And that's the kind of first round quarterback I want.

Discussions about 2nd (or 3rd) tier quarterback candidates like Tannehill (or Mark Sanchez or Blaine Gabbert or Christian Ponder or a hundred other guys over the years) are a completely different discussion. These guys are shots in the dark, comparatively speaking, and that's why you get such a variance in opinion on them.

I'm fine with taking a shot in the dark, in principle, but I think it's a move better made in a draft that has depth at the QB position, because the value that you get is likely going to be higher. And in that vein, I think that, in a QB deep draft, a player like Tannehill is a 2nd round pick at best.

So in that light, I guess it does have something to do with "better ones next year". Or rather, "better ones than there are this year, whether it's next year or the year after or the year after that".

Really though, the main thing is that I'm just not all that impressed with Tannehill.

But if they take him I won't raise much of a fuss, because they do need to try sometime. I'll just be very, very surprised if he turns out to be anything more than a guy.

[KC_Lee]

Because the Chiefs never start the QBs they draft anyhow.

[BryanBusby]

I don't like that train of thought. A deeper QB class will just equate to more QB's going early than people would like to consider "ideal" and the Chiefs will be in the same ****ing situation except there will be more QB's that will go before the Chiefs pick.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

If they're ever going to take a shot at a real franchise caliber first round quarterback in the first round, they're going to have to finish last or next-to-last in the league, or they're going to have to sell the farm and make a move into the top 2 spots. Because that's what it takes. And that's the kind of first round quarterback I want.

.

Sadly, that isn't the type of GM and owner the team has. Fans are going to have to accept a Tannehill or a Landry Jones or whoever else is the 3rd/4th rated QB.

Do I like Tannehill? Nope. I don't think he's a first round talent. But, I'd be okay with the team drafting him since I'm so certain they aren't going to do what is needed to get the blue chip prospect.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Sadly, that isn't the type of GM and owner the team has. Fans are going to have to accept a Tannehill or a Landry Jones or whoever else is the 3rd/4th rated QB.

Do I like Tannehill? Nope. I don't think he's a first round talent. But, I'd be okay with the team drafting him since I'm so certain they aren't going to do what is needed to get the blue chip prospect.

You are absolutely correct, unfortunately.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

People are cramming different kinds of quarterbacks into the same discussion.

If they're ever going to take a shot at a real franchise caliber first round quarterback in the first round, they're going to have to finish last or next-to-last in the league, or they're going to have to sell the farm and make a move into the top 2 spots. Because that's what it takes. And that's the kind of first round quarterback I want.

Discussions about 2nd (or 3rd) tier quarterback candidates like Tannehill (or Aaron Rodgers or Ben Rothlesberger or Jay Cutler or a hundred other guys over the years) are a completely different discussion. These guys are shots in the dark, comparatively speaking, and that's why you get such a variance in opinion on them.

I'm fine with taking a shot in the dark, in principle, but I think it's a move better made in a draft that has depth at the QB position, because the value that you get is likely going to be higher. And in that vein, I think that, in a QB deep draft, a player like Tannehill is a 2nd round pick at best.

So in that light, I guess it does have something to do with "better ones next year". Or rather, "better ones than there are this year, whether it's next year or the year after or the year after that".

Really though, the main thing is that I'm just not all that impressed with Tannehill.

But if they take him I won't raise much of a fuss, because they do need to try sometime. I'll just be very, very surprised if he turns out to be anything more than a guy.

FYP just a tad.

[DeezNutz]

Fans on this board ripped the hell out of the Redskins for aggressively making a play for RGIII. Might blow up--actual cost of two first rounders in '13 and '14--but you have to respect the risk.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

People are cramming different kinds of quarterbacks into the same discussion.

If they're ever going to take a shot at a real franchise caliber first round quarterback in the first round, they're going to have to finish last or next-to-last in the league, or they're going to have to sell the farm and make a move into the top 2 spots. Because that's what it takes. And that's the kind of first round quarterback I want.

Discussions about 2nd (or 3rd) tier quarterback candidates like Tannehill (or Mark Sanchez or Blaine Gabbert or Christian Ponder or a hundred other guys over the years) are a completely different discussion. These guys are shots in the dark, comparatively speaking, and that's why you get such a variance in opinion on them.

I'm fine with taking a shot in the dark, in principle, but I think it's a move better made in a draft that has depth at the QB position, because the value that you get is likely going to be higher. And in that vein, I think that, in a QB deep draft, a player like Tannehill is a 2nd round pick at best.

So in that light, I guess it does have something to do with "better ones next year". Or rather, "better ones than there are this year, whether it's next year or the year after or the year after that".

Really though, the main thing is that I'm just not all that impressed with Tannehill.

But if they take him I won't raise much of a fuss, because they do need to try sometime. I'll just be very, very surprised if he turns out to be anything more than a guy.

QB [insert name] Isn't Good Enough x Wait Till Next Year = infinity

[Sofa King]

Originally Posted by Two-Twenty

We have Matthew Castle

So it took 32 posts for Matt Cassel to be brought up, which is shocking to say the least. But the fact that it's some long time time lurkers first post is even more amazing.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Fans on this board ripped the hell out of the Redskins for aggressively making a play for RGIII. Might blow up--actual cost of two first rounders in '13 and '14--but you have to respect the risk.

yes, 'we can't trade draft picks, too valuable!'....a variant of 'oh noes, it risky!"

also related is 'we should never root for this team to lose'...which when combined with the above (Can't Trade Draft Picks) makes drafting a QB a logical impossibility....

meanwhile Colts go from Manning to Luck, but we've got our dignity, gosh darnit!

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

I don't like that train of thought. A deeper QB class will just equate to more QB's going early than people would like to consider "ideal" and the Chiefs will be in the same ****ing situation except there will be more QB's that will go before the Chiefs pick.

It's a fair point, but I look at it this way: I think last year was a relatively deep draft, as QBs go. There weren't as many as some years, but I think that a number of the ones taken were strong candidates. Using our pick this year (11) as a reference point, we would have picked squarely between the selections of Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder. Both of whom were, in my opinion, significantly better prospects than Tannehill, although both of whom were, also in my opinion, taken earlier than I would have preferred. But I would have actually been in favor of making a move for any of them. And I think you could add a third name to that discussion, with Locker at pick 8, although that one was a bit of a head-scratcher to me. But he would have been in range for the 11th pick, had we wanted to make a move. After that, Dalton and Kaepernick were both taken in the early second. I'd consider Tannehill more in their range, as prospects go. And then you had Mallett in the third.

What that means ultimately is that there are more options. We would have been in a position, with the 11th pick, of choosing to go between Locker, Gabbert and Ponder, or waiting until the 2nd round and making a move for Andy Dalton (or Kaepernick, if that's more your style). Beyond that, if we want to use a later pick in the round as an example, we could feasibly have made a move up into that range with the pick we actually had (26), and made a play on any of those QBs.

This year, in comparison, we're talking about one guy. Tannehill. Because there is, literally, nobody else. And frankly I think that's the one and only reason we're talking about him at all.

I think people are just so desperate for a QB that they'll take whatever they can get. Which is why there's so much excitement for a 5th round pick whose ceiling is likely career backup. Desperation. And now everybody's falling in love with a guy who should by all rights be going in the second round.

[the Talking Can]

i'm working on a perfect equation

Can't Trade Draft Picks, Too Valuable (CTDPTV)
Wait Till Next Year (WTNY)
Can't Lose Meaningless Games (CLMG)
Drafting QBs Is Risky (DQBIR)
QB [insert name] Isn't Good Enough (QBIGE)

CTDPTV/WTNY x CLMG (DQBIR/QBIGE) = Carl

[Two-Twenty]

Originally Posted by Sofa King

So it took 32 posts for Matt Cassel to be brought up, which is shocking to say the least. But the fact that it's some long time time lurkers first post is even more amazing.

Lurking taught me how to spell Castle