Chiefs The case for Nick Foles

ModSocks · 02-20-2013, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

We have a dozen holes all over this roster. If it's your position that trading a 3rd for Foles means we can't fill the 2nd QB hole, then I presume you're suggesting that the Chiefs have to use 2 of their first 3 picks on QBs this season?

That's crazy talk. Yeah, they need to use one of their first 3 on a QB, no question. The 2nd QB hole should probably be filled in some other fashion.

For instance, if they take Geno at 1.1, would you really think its wise to use the 2nd rounder, which could be our #2 corner/WR or the 3rd rounder, which could be our starting SS, on a backup QB?

No, I don't think this franchise has any business doing that right now. They need to decide who they're going to pick as their QBOTF this year and they need to aggressively pursue that option. If that's Geno Smith - get him. If it's Nick Foles, figure something out. Then from there you use the rest of your picks to fill other gaping holes on the roster and you try to be creative with the backup QB role. There's always a Henne or Orton or Moore to be had as a sound backup QB.

The fact that Scooter intentionally avoided ever having a viable backup quarterback on this roster to avoid pressuring his dipshit pet doesn't mean that they're actually that difficult to acquire.

I'd rather have two young, quality QB's than one. I understand what you mean and you have a valid point...but i guess i don't really care how the QB's are acquired as long as they are acquired. My view might be a little bit different if we only had one 3rd rounder.....but we should have two.

So Nick Foles would essentially be our compensation for losing Carr, and we would STILL have a full slate of draft picks in every round to address other issues. It wouldn't be any different than a team spending the 1st overall on a QB and then using rounds 2-7 to address every other issue (which happens every season).

Spending an early draft pick on what might amount to a back up may not be ideal to you, but it's something i would fully support if that's the direction they want to go in.

Going into camp with two young, promising QB's doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

DJ's left nut · 02-20-2013, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I'd rather have two young, quality QB's than one. I understand what you mean and you have a valid point...but i guess i don't really care how the QB's are acquired as long as they are acquired. My view might be a little bit different if we only had one 3rd rounder.....but we should have two.

So Nick Foles would essentially be our compensation for losing Carr, and we would STILL have a full slate of draft picks in every round to address other issues. It wouldn't be any different than a team spending the 1st overall on a QB and then using rounds 2-7 to address every other issue (which happens every season).

Spending an early draft pick on what might amount to a back up may not be ideal to you, but it's something i would fully support if that's the direction they want to go in.

Going into camp with two young, promising QB's doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

It doesn't in a vacuum, but it's all about opportunity cost.

Going into camp with a young, promising starting QB along with a young, promising SS sounds better than having a young, promising starting QB and another backup.

It's about using finite resources to cover several holes. If we could trade the comp pick, I'd be okay with trading that for Foles - but we can't. We'd have to trade 3.1 and because of the depth of the 2nd round, there are going to be same damn good players there at 3.1 Harrison Smith was a first round pick for the Vike's last year and I think Baccari Rambo is a better player than Smith and he'll likely be there for us at 3.1 but not at the comp pick.

This could be a bedrock draft and I want us to be as aggressive as possible in it. Using a high pick on a backup QB is reactive and I don't like it.

ModSocks · 02-20-2013, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It doesn't in a vacuum, but it's all about opportunity cost.

Going into camp with a young, promising starting QB along with a young, promising SS sounds better than having a young, promising starting QB and another backup.

It's about using finite resources to cover several holes. If we could trade the comp pick, I'd be okay with trading that for Foles - but we can't. We'd have to trade 3.1 and because of the depth of the 2nd round, there are going to be same damn good players there at 3.1 Harrison Smith was a first round pick for the Vike's last year and I think Baccari Rambo is a better player than Smith and he'll likely be there for us at 3.1 but not at the comp pick.

This could be a bedrock draft and I want us to be as aggressive as possible in it. Using a high pick on a backup QB is reactive and I don't like it.

I don't see it as reactive. I see it as very proactive. It's the beginning of a QB farm system, as well as giving yourself multiple options at the position in case one or the other doesn't work out...or in the event of an injury.

Because we have an extra 3rd, we could walk away from the draft with:

1.1 QB
2.2 WR
3.1 Nick Foles
3.whatever SS

etc.

And like you pointed out, teams have been able to find quality starters at the safety position deeper in the draft, so there is still a very good chance you could find a quality player with 3.-whatever it's going to be.

**Rausch** · 02-20-2013, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I'd rather have two young, quality QB's than one. I understand what you mean and you have a valid point...but i guess i don't really care how the QB's are acquired as long as they are acquired. My view might be a little bit different if we only had one 3rd rounder.....but we should have two.

So Nick Foles would essentially be our compensation for losing Carr, and we would STILL have a full slate of draft picks in every round to address other issues. It wouldn't be any different than a team spending the 1st overall on a QB and then using rounds 2-7 to address every other issue (which happens every season).

Spending an early draft pick on what might amount to a back up may not be ideal to you, but it's something i would fully support if that's the direction they want to go in.

Going into camp with two young, promising QB's doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

htismaqe · 02-20-2013, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

The problem is that what the Seahawks did almost NEVER happens. Teams just don't do that.

Of course, teams don't do what the Skins did last year either.

So maybe we're looking at the start of a new trend...

ModSocks · 02-20-2013, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So maybe we're looking at the start of a new trend...

Exactly.

Especially considering the success that young QB's have had in recent years. Couple that with the increased reliance on good QB play, the restructuring of the CBA which allows teams to take QB's early and not have to pay them enormous sums, and all of a sudden you have teams attempting to stock pile talent at the position.

**Rausch** · 02-20-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Exactly.

Especially considering the success that young QB's have had in recent years. Couple that with the increased reliance on good QB play, the restructuring of the CBA which allows teams to take QB's early and not have to pay them enormous sums, and all of a sudden you have teams attempting to stock pile talent at the position.

And do it much earlier in the draft than before...

**Easy 6** · 02-20-2013, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The problem is that what the Seahawks did almost NEVER happens. Teams just don't do that.

Of course, teams don't do what the Skins did last year either.

So maybe we're looking at the start of a new trend...

I honestly think we'll see more and more teams going that route with the importance of that position at an all time high.

Particularly teams that havent had a good one in a long time.

DJ's left nut · 02-20-2013, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

Sure, a rookie 3rd rounder.

They dedicated a reasonable FA contract and a 3rd round pick to the position - that's it. And who the hell would complain about that?

That's not what some folks are suggesting. They're suggesting using 2 of our first 3 picks on the position. No, the Seahawks would've never done that.

And frankly, the Seahawks are an outlier. If you're going to cite them as your model, then I guess we need to draft a bunch of 3rd and 4th round QBs, right? They got lucky.

**Rausch** · 02-20-2013, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Sure, a rookie 3rd rounder.

They dedicated a reasonable FA contract and a 3rd round pick to the position - that's it. And who the hell would complain about that?

That's not what some folks are suggesting. They're suggesting using 2 of our first 3 picks on the position. No, the Seahawks would've never done that.

And frankly, the Seahawks are an outlier. If you're going to cite them as your model, then I guess we need to draft a bunch of 3rd and 4th round QBs, right? They got lucky.

I like the idea of not just adding one guy and saying we've "addressed" the position.

I like signing a vet FA, AND drafting the best QB available, and if the damned world league wouldn't have gone tits up I'd look there as well.

The Niners didn't quit looking for QB's because they had Montana. Packers kept drafting and adding guys behind good QB's.

You should be looking to improve your starter or depth every single year at that position...

htismaqe · 02-20-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

I like the idea of not just adding one guy and saying we've "addressed" the position.

I like signing a vet FA, AND drafting the best QB available, and if the damned world league wouldn't have gone tits up I'd look there as well.

The Niners didn't quit looking for QB's because they had Montana. Packers kept drafting and adding guys behind good QB's.

You should be looking to improve your starter or depth every single year at that position...

The reality of the modern NFL is such that if you give up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round pick for a guy, he's going to be "the man".

This isn't 1990.

ModSocks · 02-20-2013, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The reality of the modern NFL is such that if you give up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round pick for a guy, he's going to be "the man".

This isn't 1990.

I think that would apply to 1st and 2nd rounders, sure...but not 3rd's....especially when you have two to spare.

We could have Geno Smith and Nick Foles and STILL have a full slate of picks 2-7.

**Rausch** · 02-20-2013, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The reality of the modern NFL is such that if you give up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round pick for a guy, he's going to be "the man".

This isn't 1990.

Didn't the Skins give up a 3rd for a QB right after taking RGIII?

The Lambs traded for TrINT but ended up with Warner.

We planned on Girlbac but ended up with Gannon. Or at least should have.

You might plan on one thing but you want as many options as possible at that position...

Skyy God · 02-20-2013, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

Didn't the Skins give up a 3rd for a QB right after taking RGIII?

The Lambs traded for TrINT but ended up with Warner.

We planned on Girlbac but ended up with Gannon. Or at least should have.

You might plan on one thing but you want as many options as possible at that position...

Cousins went in the 4th.

htismaqe · 02-20-2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

Didn't the Skins give up a 3rd for a QB right after taking RGIII?

I already mentioned that the Seahawks and Skins might be the start of a new trend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

The Lambs traded for TrINT but ended up with Warner.

The Rams traded for Green and then he got his knee demolished. They were left with no choice but to start Warner and then he went and won the Super Bowl. Not at all analogous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

We planned on Girlbac but ended up with Gannon. Or at least should have.

Much like the Green/Warner situation, Grbac would have started all 16 games in 1997 had he not gotten hurt.