Mellinger: In the Jets, there's a lesson for Chiefs fan about taking the safe route

[Deberg_1990]

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...le3481340.html



In the structure of the modern NFL, the most important decision a franchise can make is who plays quarterback. Two years ago, two franchises walked away from this decision on two very different paths.

The Chiefs played it safe, were largely criticized for it, then made the playoffs and have a chance to do it again this season. The Jets took the gamble that many in Kansas City had been screaming for, and are now 1-7 in what is a virtual certainty to be a fourth consecutive season without the playoffs.

They will play this weekend at Arrowhead Stadium in what for Chiefs fans could be fairly called The Upside of Boring.

Boring hardly ever plays well with sports fans, right? We want bold, we want daring. We want to toast those with enough guts to go for it all and laugh at the cowards who don’t.


But when it came time for the Chiefs’ new power structure to choose a quarterback, they did it with all of the flair of a ham sandwich.

They traded for a known commodity in Alex Smith, a man who had demonstrated what scouts often call “a high floor” but also “a low ceiling” which is often translated by fans and media as “weak sauce.” Then, when Smith performed well in their system and with their coaches, they signed him to a long-term extension for a higher salary than two-time Super Bowl champion Eli Manning, among others. Solid, logical, conservative thinking.

This has always been the Chiefs’ way. Trading for the 49ers’ backup quarterback is a time-honored tradition here.

One of the byproducts of this approach is a fan base that often clamors for bold, for daring, for, come to think of it, what the Jets sometimes do.

Two years ago, the same offseason when the Chiefs traded for Smith, the Jets were coming off 6-10 and also needed a quarterback. They’d drafted Mark Sanchez four years earlier with the fifth overall pick and watched him deteriorate from promising to an unplayable mess. They felt a compelling need to upgrade, to find the quarterback of their future.

Many around Kansas City wanted the Chiefs to draft Geno Smith, the three-year starter at West Virginia who completed 67 percent of his passes for 98 touchdowns and 21 interceptions.

Full disclosure, I was in that crowd, at least until hearing from league insiders who questioned his drive, personality and ability to read defenses, among other things. Every draft prospect is questioned, obviously, but there was something different about the tone and scope of the criticism of Smith. It’s one reason he fell into the second round, and surely one reason the Chiefs went with a different Smith at quarterback.

Coincidence or not, Geno Smith has been fairly terrible in his short time in the NFL. He’s thrown 19 touchdowns and 31 interceptions. By passer rating, Total Quarterback Rating, and the advanced metrics at Pro Football Focus and Football Outsiders, Smith is either the worst, second-worst, or third-worst quarterback this season.

He was benched this week. Michael Vick, who has completed 26 of 56 passes this season, will start instead.

Think the Jets would like that pick back?


Alex Smith was the top overall pick in the 2005 draft, but generally lacks the type of elite, obvious, natural ability that fans and scouts like in brand name quarterbacks.

The story about the Chiefs’ Smith is often the story about what he isn’t. He’s a good athlete with a great feel for the pocket, but can’t really be called elusive. He reads defenses well and is usually quite accurate, but has occasional lapses and doesn’t throw the best deep ball.

The Chiefs lost at the goal line as time expired in Denver, and with an interception on their final drive in San Francisco. The quarterback is the one who gets the most credit when things go well (like the two-minute drill that won a game in San Diego) and the one with the most blame when things fail. That’s part of the job description.

But in Smith’s case, it misses the point that the Chiefs are 11th in the league in scoring with a flimsy group of receivers and an offensive line that struggles in pass protection.

Jamaal Charles is the star of the offense, obviously, the one defenses plan for every week. But Smith makes enough good decisions, and is reliable enough with short and medium-range passes, to keep the offense moving and — through a season and a half in Kansas City — the Chiefs winning.

Now, clearly, the Chiefs would love to draft and develop their own quarterback. That has proven to be the most successful way to find a top passer and win Super Bowls.

But the Chiefs picked first overall the year after Andrew Luck. They went boring, and traded for a guy who led them to the playoffs. The Jets reached, and drafted a guy they just benched.

Boring is better, sometimes.

[jkw87]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

The Hunt family went 1 of 2 in Super Bowls and earns a playoff bid once every fourth or fifth year with veteran QBs acquired from another team.

Drafting a first Round QB risks that kind of run. That's why you'll never see the Chiefs draft a Geno Smith or an Andrew Luck.

That and they're afraid of investing a guaranteed 70 million in one guy.

You're an idiot if you think they would have passed on Luck if we'd had the opportunity. Throwing Geno into the same category with Luck shows your stupidity.

[Rasputin]

Chiefs are penetrating mediocrity champions.

[Imon Yourside]

We definitely should have sucked for Luck, man everyone was on board here except for the idiots running the organization.

[jkw87]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

Chiefs Planet is awful at evaluating QB play. Just unbelievably bad....End of thread and every other one like it

Yeah, but when they get on that bandwagon with shitty quarterbacks and scream first round... Shit like that will never stop.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

There's not really anything controversial in the article. The guy's right. In the 'battle' of Geno v. Alex, Alex is the clear winner.

Reading comprehension skills are lacking here though.

The article didn't say you should never draft a QB, just that in that scenario it worked out better not drafting Geno.

The same idiots here are going to attempt to claim that Clark "won't allow" his very high paid hand picked coach and GM to draft a QB if they wanted to.

It's pretty hilarious.

I am willing to bet good money our next every day starting QB will com from the draft.

[jkw87]

Originally Posted by SNR

Nothing wrong with acquiring a veteran to ease the rookie into the league.

The problem I have is when teams like the Chiefs trade for those veteran backups and act like just because they used the draft to acquire their guy, that means they basically drafted their own QB.

They didn't. All they did was pay an unnecessarily high price for a stop gap-level talent QB who could have been had in free agency.

And yet people like me last year who advocated making the "stabilization period" for the QB position on this team as brief as possible with a free agent like Carson Palmer were ridiculed because Palmer wasn't good enough. You're right, he's not. He would have given us Alex Smith, basically.

Only, you know... we'd be up two 2nd round picks by now, we'd be free to pick any young QB we wanted to wait in the wings, and could ditch the free agent QB at any time without being wasteful

I actually agree with you on this. We overpaid for Smith in both draft picks and money... It was a mistake and I hope it wasn't the only thing Dorsey will be remembered for here.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Reading comprehension skills are lacking here though.

The article didn't say you should never draft a QB, just that in that scenario it worked out better not drafting Geno.

The same idiots here are going to attempt to claim that Clark "won't allow" his very high paid hand picked coach and GM to draft a QB if they wanted to.

It's pretty hilarious.

I am willing to bet good money our next every day starting QB will com from the draft.

The article comes oh so close to saying the 'boring' strategy is better whenever you don't have a chance to draft a QB like Andrew Luck.... because, like he said, Geno Smith in the 2nd round was such a stretch.

[The Bad Guy]

Overpaid in draft picks?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The article comes oh so close to saying the 'boring' strategy is better whenever you don't have a chance to draft a QB like Andrew Luck.... because, like he said, Geno Smith in the 2nd round was such a stretch.

The article is specific to the Geno/Alex debate.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

Overpaid in draft picks?

I know right, like a couple of seconds is some kind of franchise killer raping for a steady handed veteran.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by jkw87

You're an idiot if you think they would have passed on Luck if we'd had the opportunity. Throwing Geno into the same category with Luck shows your stupidity.

No first round QBs since Blackledge in 1983.
No second round QBs since Matt Bludnin 1992.
Brodie Croyle in the 3rd round in 2006.
Pat Barnes in the 4th in 1997.
Aaron Murray and Ricky Stanzi in the 5th in 2014 and 2011 respectively.


There's all the evidence in the world that if the gun was put to any given Chiefs' GM's head, he doesn't select a QB.

Because that gun is being held by a member of the Hunt family, and they believe a high round QB is too risky.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

It's not about going down to the dollar store and picking up a franchise QB, it's about trying a clearly superior strategy while finding a middle ground between not trying at all and picking a QB for the sake of picking one... or at least trying a different strategy besides the one that's obviously failed for most of the past 4 decades (outside of Joe Montana and that one time they actually drafted a QB in the first round).

Outside of Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson, what QBs have been drafted lately that you would have wanted more than Alex Smith?

If Joe Flacco can win a Super Bowl, pretty sure Alex Smith can, too.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The article is specific to the Geno/Alex debate.

So it's an argument over 0/1 VS. 0/0...

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

I know right, like a couple of seconds is some kind of franchise killer raping for a steady handed veteran.

I'll never understand this line of argument that "It was only a couple of 2nd round picks."

They're only ever just a couple of 2nd round picks... unless you actually draft good players with them. Then, yeah, they ARE a couple of 2nd round picks that we no longer have. And that ****ing sucks.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Reading comprehension skills are lacking here though.

The article didn't say you should never draft a QB, just that in that scenario it worked out better not drafting Geno.

The same idiots here are going to attempt to claim that Clark "won't allow" his very high paid hand picked coach and GM to draft a QB if they wanted to.

It's pretty hilarious.

I am willing to bet good money our next every day starting QB will com from the draft.

This front office has already made investments at the QB position.

They've selected/drafted or signed a rookie QB in each of the last two off-seasons. They signed the best known commodity at the position that was available to them when they absolutely needed to (Alex Smith).

They are not sitting on their hands at the position.

I'm pretty sure that they will draft a QB in the higher rounds when one is available that fits their parameters for the position.

Reid has done it in the past and Dorsey did it in Green Bay.

I concur that our next QB will be one that was drafted and developed by the KC Chiefs.

It's not going to be next year or the year after, but it will happen.