Football Peter King: You have to go back to 1997 to find a draft like this one

htismaqe · 02-19-2013, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

See, that stuff doesn't bother me. If the Chiefs win and win in the playoffs, I couldn't care less how the QB was acquired.

Now, if the Chiefs need a QB and deliberately pass on highly rated guy, that's a different story. But if Matt Flynn or Nick Foles or Alex Smith won a Super Bowl as a Chiefs, I'd be thrilled.

I know you and I differ on this but the reason I care about how we acquire the QB is because I believe it is a factor on whether or not we can win in the first place.

The teams that are winning and winning regularly have drafted and developed their own guys.

In the 30 years or so I've been a fan, I've seen the Matt Flynn/Nick Foles/Alex Smith's come through KC. Over and over and over. I know how the story ends.

Is it completely rational or objective? No. If I were capable of looking at this in a 100% rational manner, I would have given up on this crap franchise YEARS ago.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-19-2013, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I know you and I differ on this but the reason I care about how we acquire the QB is because I believe it is a factor on whether or not we can win in the first place.

I have always believe that the only way to consistently win Super Bowls is through the draft. And it's not just QB's, it's stockpiling CB's, DE's, LB's, WR's, etc. Perimeter guys that make a true difference in the game.

But at this point in time, if the Chiefs can acquire a QB that is ready to lead this team to the playoffs for the next 3-4 years consistently, I don't care how he's acquired.

This teams has so many pieces in place that IF they can acquire an accurate passer and leader on offense, this team can make some noise. Maybe, just maybe, some serious noise.

So as I've stated before, if it's Foles or Smith or Flynn or G. Smith or someone else, I'm in. This team is ready.

Especially on defense.

htismaqe · 02-19-2013, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I have always believe that the only way to consistently win Super Bowls is through the draft. And it's not just QB's, it's stockpiling CB's, DE's, LB's, WR's, etc. Perimeter guys that make a true difference in the game.

But at this point in time, if the Chiefs can acquire a QB that is ready to lead this team to the playoffs for the next 3-4 years consistently, I don't care how he's acquired.

This teams has so many pieces in place that IF they can acquire an accurate passer and leader on offense, this team can make some noise. Maybe, just maybe, some serious noise.

So as I've stated before, if it's Foles or Smith or Flynn or G. Smith or someone else, I'm in. This team is ready.

Especially on defense.

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft. Flynn isn't even worth discussing. And Alex Smith's history doesn't necessarily scream "serious noise".

The 1995 team was "ready", especially on defense. This sounds EXACTLY like that. And we already know how that ended. In both 1995 AND 1997.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-19-2013, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft. Flynn isn't even worth discussing. And Alex Smith's history doesn't necessarily scream "serious noise".

The 1995 team was "ready", especially on defense. This sounds EXACTLY like that. And we already know how that ended. In both 1995 AND 1997.

Foles is unknown to you, not the head coach.

This defense is as championship ready as half the playoff contenders in 2012, if not more.

This team is ready to strike. All they need the right QB to lead them.

htismaqe · 02-20-2013, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Foles is unknown to you, not the head coach.

This defense is as championship ready as half the playoff contenders in 2012, if not more.

This team is ready to strike. All they need the right QB to lead them.

Sounds like you're in full "gotta get these guys a championship" desperation mode.

Yep, that's how you end up with STEVE BONO.

Frankie · 02-20-2013, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Foles is unknown to you, not the head coach.

I was only 11 hours late.

BigCatDaddy · 02-20-2013, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

I was only 11 hours late.

Care to rethink this, Dane?

**BossChief** · 02-19-2013, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft. Flynn isn't even worth discussing. And Alex Smith's history doesn't necessarily scream "serious noise".

The 1995 team was "ready", especially on defense. This sounds EXACTLY like that. And we already know how that ended. In both 1995 AND 1997.

Andy Reid knows quite a bit about Foles and Dorsey knows quite a bit about Flynn.

**HemiEd** · 02-20-2013, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

Andy Reid knows quite a bit about Foles and Dorsey knows quite a bit about Flynn.

Rinse and repeat. Pioli knew a lot about Cassel.

Sorry, just been burned to many times, I am going to live in Missouri soon so they are going to have to show me.

htismaqe · 02-20-2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

Andy Reid knows quite a bit about Foles and Dorsey knows quite a bit about Flynn.

You're rationalizing again.

Chris Meck · 02-20-2013, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's just the thing. Foles is as much an unknown as any of the QBs in this draft. Flynn isn't even worth discussing. And Alex Smith's history doesn't necessarily scream "serious noise".

The 1995 team was "ready", especially on defense. This sounds EXACTLY like that. And we already know how that ended. In both 1995 AND 1997.

Foles is less of an unknown than ANY of the QB's in the draft. He's actually got a half season or so of actual NFL football to look at.

Foles is less of an unknown than Matt Flynn. Flynn's got one game to look at, and the fact that he got outplayed by a 3rd round rookie. (True, that rookie looks pretty special, but still.) I'd be bummed if we went with Flynn.

Foles is MORE of an unknown than Alex Smith; although I think with Smith you kind of have an idea of the ceiling. Foles you have an idea where the floor is, but the ceiling is to be determined. I'd be mildly disappointed if we went with Smith. This IS the same thing we've done for going on 3 decades.

IF Reid and Dorsey aren't into G. Smith and feel like the dropoff to the Barkley/Wilson/Nassib/Dysert guys is nada, I'd not be opposed to trading a pick for Foles and taking whichever of those guys at the top of the 2nd that they like as insurance. Two young QB's (one that's ready to play and has some experience in THIS offense with THIS coach, and one that's probably not quite there yet) would bode well for the future.

htismaqe · 02-20-2013, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Foles is less of an unknown than ANY of the QB's in the draft. He's actually got a half season or so of actual NFL football to look at.

Foles is less of an unknown than Matt Flynn. Flynn's got one game to look at, and the fact that he got outplayed by a 3rd round rookie. (True, that rookie looks pretty special, but still.) I'd be bummed if we went with Flynn.

Foles is MORE of an unknown than Alex Smith; although I think with Smith you kind of have an idea of the ceiling. Foles you have an idea where the floor is, but the ceiling is to be determined. I'd be mildly disappointed if we went with Smith. This IS the same thing we've done for going on 3 decades.

IF Reid and Dorsey aren't into G. Smith and feel like the dropoff to the Barkley/Wilson/Nassib/Dysert guys is nada, I'd not be opposed to trading a pick for Foles and taking whichever of those guys at the top of the 2nd that they like as insurance. Two young QB's (one that's ready to play and has some experience in THIS offense with THIS coach, and one that's probably not quite there yet) would bode well for the future.

I'm not opposed to trading a 3rd or 4th for Foles and having him COMPETE for a starting job.

We both know that's not what's going to happen. They'll hand him the keys.

There's absolutely no way to spin it otherwise - it IS Matt Cassel all over again.

Chris Meck · 02-20-2013, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I'm not opposed to trading a 3rd or 4th for Foles and having him COMPETE for a starting job.

We both know that's not what's going to happen. They'll hand him the keys.

There's absolutely no way to spin it otherwise - it IS Matt Cassel all over again.

Except that it's not.
Foles is a 24 year old kid, who started and played well in college, who has a good arm and played pretty well on a shit team with little help as a rookie.

Cassel never played a down of college football, has a weak arm and took what had been an 18-1 team the previous season to a 10-6 record (with the scheduling gods playing the Pats against what was a horrible NFC West).

You cannot compare him to Cassel, they're nothing alike in any way, shape, form, experience level, background, physical attribute, or potential. They are literally two white guys who play QB and the similarity ends there.

The situation would be more like when GB traded a #2 for Brett Favre back in like '91 or '92 or whatever. If Reid thinks Foles is better than any of the possible draftees I'm good with it. I'd still like a high-ish pick to hedge the bet, though, and I like Nassib as a guy you could groom and hedge the bet.

I don't think Reid just hands anyone anything, it doesn't seem to be his MO. I would expect that Foles would start over any second round QB and Stanzi just based on past performance, but I don't think Reid would stick with him if there's a better player on the bench like Pioli did.

Deberg_1990 · 02-20-2013, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

The situation would be more like when GB traded a #2 for Brett Favre back in like '91 or '92 or whatever.

and even thats pushing it. Favre barely even played for the Falcons in 91, so Foles has alot more experience at this point in his career than Favre did.

htismaqe · 02-20-2013, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Except that it's not.
Foles is a 24 year old kid, who started and played well in college, who has a good arm and played pretty well on a shit team with little help as a rookie.

No, he's a former 3rd round pick who played good (not great) in a 1-read spread offense, taking almost 80% of his snaps out of the shotgun.

He played flat above average ball as rookie while still taking 75% of his snaps out of the shotgun.

The ONLY reason he's even being talked about is because people are suddenly ready to just blindly trust Reid, as if the whole Scott Pioli thing never happened.

What's funny is the Chiefs have shown exactly ZERO interest in Nick Foles and the Eagles have shown exactly ZERO interest in trading him.