****Official NFL 2012 Draft Thread****

[SPchief]

We know the 1st two picks. After that? Lets Go!



EDIT:

USE SPOILER TAGS IF YOU ARE POSTING A SPOILER... SUCH AS A TWEET... before the pick is in and shown on NFL/ESPN.

It works like this

Spoiler!

You suck if you can't figure this out.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by morphius

The argument is flawed, a failed first round QB will set a team back further than a miss at any other position.

That was true before this new CBA.

Not any longer.

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by morphius

The argument is flawed, a failed first round QB will set a team back further than a miss at any other position.

this team been set back 42 years. lol What else can happen 45?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

Poe and Tannehill are pretty much the same thing on the most important position on either side of the ball. I would have preferred the risk at QB, but I don't get paid $5,000,000/yr to make that call.

The reason I am not gung ho at all about Tannehill has nothing to do with risk. It's that I think he's a safe pick. Safe in that he probably won't suck, but he just doesn't have a very high ceiling. If he's great, as milkman said his upside is Rich Gannon. And that's an "if." Poe is a bigger boom/bust guy than Tannehill. Because his ceiling could be something really special, but he also has the potential to fall really, really hard on his face. I like the Poe pick better than a Tannehill pick because if I can't get a sure thing at a position that critical, I'd rather swing for the fences and miss than swing for singles and connect.

The other important thing to consider is, the risk of failure is significantly smaller in Poe's case than Tannehill's. If Tannehill is an okay QB, that's a massive waste of a pick and three years. If Poe is an okay NT, that's not a terrible pick.

But in either case... the Chiefs needed to take a big stab at both Nose Tackle or QB. They chose one over the other. We can't criticize the risk taken on a nose tackle and use that as an argument to justify not taking a risk on a QB.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by milkman

That was true before this new CBA.

Not any longer.

I don't believe it has changed. Yes they are cheaper, but teams will still give them longer at the position to try to learn it because the GM often gets tied to the pick. And you can only cover up their play so much because they touch the ball on every single offensive play.

[Direckshun]

QB
Matt Cassel
Brady Quinn
Ricky Stanzi

RB
Jamaal Charles
Peyton Hillis
Dexter McCluster
Shaun Draughn

FB
Shane Bannon

WR
Dwayne Bowe
Steve Breaston
Jonathan Baldwin
Devon Wylie
Terrance Copper
Jeremy Horne
Zeke Markshausen
Jamar Newsome

TE
Tony Moeaki
Kevin Boss
Steve Maneri
Kevin O'Connell

OT
Brandon Albert
Eric Winston
Donald Stephenson
David Mims

OG
Jon Asamoah
Ryan Lilja
Jeff Allen

C
Rodney Hudson
Darryl Harris
Rob Bruggeman

NT
Dontari Poe
Amon Gordon
Jerrell Powe
Anthony Toribio

DE
Glenn Dorsey
Tyson Jackson
Allen Bailey
Brandon Bair
Luke Patterson

OLB
Tamba Hali
Justin Houston
Cameron Sheffield
Andy Studebaker
Gabe Miller

ILB
Derrick Johnson
Jovan Belcher
Brandon Siler
Cory Greenwood
Caleb Campbell

CB
Brandon Flowers
Stanford Routt
Javier Arenas
Travis Daniels
Jalil Brown
Jacques Reeves

S
Eric Berry
Kendrick Lewis
DaQuan Menzie
Kyle McCarthy
Donald Washington
Mikail Baker

K
Ryan Succop

P
Dustin Colquitt

LS
Thomas Gafford

[morphius]

Originally Posted by Fruit Ninja

this team been set back 42 years. lol What else can happen 45?

If I had seen anything outside of athletic out of Tannehill I would have been all for picking him. But there really wasn't anything I saw out of his play that would make me want him on my team.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by 3 4

Please explain what Wash traded for RG3, if the CBA doesn;rmatter now.

The point about the CBA is that you are no longer taking the financial risk you used to for an early round pick, so teams like Washington can make that can of trade now.

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by morphius

If I had seen anything outside of athletic out of Tannehill I would have been all for picking him. But there really wasn't anything I saw out of his play that would make me want him on my team.

Tannehill doesnt even MATTER anymore, we didnt pass on him, he wasnt there when we picked. In the end we still have Matt ****ing Cassel.

Im to the point where, I'd rather give Brady Quinn a shot over Matt Cassel. I freaking despise him, big time as a qb for the Chiefs. Like almost Raider hate.

[Stanley Nickels]

The Draft Avengers is the lamest ****ing thing. Ever.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by Fruit Ninja

Tannehill doesnt even MATTER anymore, we didnt pass on him, he wasnt there when we picked. In the end we still have Matt ****ing Cassel.

Im to the point where, I'd rather give Brady Quinn a shot over Matt Cassel. I freaking despise him, big time as a qb for the Chiefs. Like almost Raider hate.

Oh, I'm with you there, though I rather skip to Stanzi.

[Bewbies]

Originally Posted by morphius

Oh, I'm with you there, though I rather skip to Stanzi.

Me too. If all these o-line picks are protectors for Stanzi I love em. If they're protecting Cassel they were terrible picks.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

TC absolutely hates the Poe pick and it's because of his lack of performance on the college field. He hasn't hid that at all. He's been the most critical of the pick all day. Even saying the Chiefs made the pick purely to fill a need. Never suggesting that maybe they took a risk because they wanted to take a chance on a guy who could fill an important position, instead of laying up on a Guard. There is no way you can suggest that he's just being sarcastic.

And that's absolutely hypocritical if he's going to rail the Chiefs for taking a risk on a nose tackle, when he's at the same time promoting that the Chiefs need to take a risk on a QB. It's a convenient way to bait people into hating the Poe pick.

No question TC hates the pick, but he isn't going to bait anyone else into hating it.

That's the stupidest ****ing thing I've ever heard.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Sannyasi

Minus a few trolls, everyone on this board wants us to draft a QB. This isn't 2009.

And yet, every QB we have any shot at drafting is not worth the risk to almost everyone on this forum.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by morphius

I don't believe it has changed. Yes they are cheaper, but teams will still give them longer at the position to try to learn it because the GM often gets tied to the pick. And you can only cover up their play so much because they touch the ball on every single offensive play.

Really?

How many years did we give Ryan Sims.

First round picks, regardless of position are going to get a minimum of 3 years.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

And yet, every QB we have any shot at drafting is not worth the risk to almost everyone on this forum.

It depends on how you define risk.

Is "risk" talking about desperately settling for a QB because he's safe, even if he doesn't have tremendous upside? To me, risk is gambling to trade up aggressively for the right QB--I think the Chiefs should have tried and I'm disappointed that they didn't, but in the end, the compensation was WAY too high if the Chiefs wanted to match. [correction: I'm talking about RGIII here, not Tannehill] To me, risk is gambling on a QB with tremendous skill sets that lead you to believe he could be a franchise QB, even if he has some major flaw in the game that gives him major downside risk.

Tannehill doesn't feel that way whatsoever. People want to say we'd be taking a chance on a QB, but deep inside, we know he feels more safe than risky. Nobody really think he's going to suck. But we think there's a good likelihood he'll be better than Cassel. Yet, there doesn't seem to be many people here that have the thought in the back of his mind that this kid has a chance to be something special. More like the kid has a good chance of not sucking.