Originally Posted by Dave Lane (Post 9578312)

Look at the hot garbage backing Alex Smith up. You can't win or have a future with that group of clowns. You HAVE to get a realistic backup to AS, why not take the best QB on the board?

Originally Posted by Bootlegged (Post 9578390)

Take this fwiw - a friend works for a major agent (Lagardere) - just dropped this bomb on me.

Tavon Austin is high if not at the top of the Chiefs board. They think he's better than Harvin.

Asked if he was serious and he said yes... Still not sure I believe it, but that would be a shock to the draftniks..

Originally Posted by Bootlegged (Post 9578390)

Take this fwiw - a friend works for a major agent (Lagardere) - just dropped this bomb on me.

Tavon Austin is high if not at the top of the Chiefs board. They think he's better than Harvin.

Asked if he was serious and he said yes... Still not sure I believe it, but that would be a shock to the draftniks..

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9575373)

From the free agency megathread:



The Raiders are signing up so many QBs that it is now virtually impossible they would take Geno Smith, even if he was available at #3 overall.

And they'd be theoretically passing on him for Seneca Wallace, Terrell (sp?) Pryor and maybe even Tyler ****ing Thigpen.

What's far more likely, is what some of us already suspect: they're not passing on him at all.

Like all of the QB-specific movement that immediately pre-dated the Geno visit in KC, I think the worst kept secret behind the closed doors of GM offices across the league is that Geno Smith is officially off the board at #1 overall.

I personally think it is down to the Eagles and the Jaguars. The Eagles want Geno as a developmental guy behind Vick, and the Jags, who are largely believed to like Geno, don't want to get jumped, a la Browns with Trent Richardson last year.

And then there's the least likely option, but one I think is still somehow alive: that the Chiefs actually think Geno fits what they're trying to do, and can be special, and that they will take Geno #1 overall if the compensation they are offered for trading down isn't sexy enough.

I may have my head up my ass, as I so often do. But I think the reasonable assumption to make from here on out that Geno Smith is known league-wide to be the first overall pick. The league almost certainly knows who the players for that pick are. And I'm willing to bet the league almost certainly assumes the Chiefs are not in the running for Geno. There has been absolutely no smoke for that particular fire to be real.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 9577940)

They haven't passed up every draft pick and walked away, either. Would you recommend that just because it's change? Of course not.

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 9578454)

Well he's already made one QB look amazing with his YAC and rushing yards.

He can do that with any QB in the NFL, too.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 9578345)

You take him if you think he's your guy. You don't take him if you don't. You don't just take the guy in order to say you took a QB. Honestly, I don't understand why that seems to be such a controversial approach around here.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 9577940)

They haven't passed up every draft pick and walked away, either. Would you recommend that just because it's change? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578459)

This post made my day, because he really hits on a point most Chiefs fans are too drowned in koolaid to understand.

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy (Post 9578479)

And the troll cast out his line.....

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578488)

False equivalency.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578488)

And it's just plain silly how you're STILL playing up this Tom Brady shit as anything else but blind luck.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578488)

Guess what? The Rams had to sign Kurt Warner and put faith in him as the back up to Trent Green. Are you going to say that's luck, but Tom Brady isn't?

Originally Posted by PGM (Post 9578496)

That post right there earns him at least a douche nomination...wow

Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9578480)

Because we passed on guys like Rodgers, Flacco, Kaepernick, Wilson, Dalton and Brees because "they weren't good enough"

At some point, the excuse makes the regime seem like a bunch of pussies that are scared to take a chance in a league that rewards teams that take risks.

It's sad that this fanbase drools over players that weren't good enough for other teams, but deem every quarterback in the draft "not good enough"

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578493)

Oh. NOOOOOWWW I remember why I called you illogical.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578514)

I really have to explain this to you?

Team X has a starting QB still in his prime with a Super Bowl appearance to his name. The team is consistently putting up winning seasons and playoff appearances. In one draft, they are given a compensatory selection, with which they see this QB prospect that they kinda like. They say, "Why not? Never hurts to draft a QB, and this guy looks pretty good for a 6th rounder." That pick ends up winning them three Super Bowls. His name gets mentioned in conversations about the greatest QB to ever play the game.

And you say there's no luck involved.


...Ooooooooookay

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578514)

I really have to explain this to you?

Team X has a starting QB still in his prime with a Super Bowl appearance to his name. The team is consistently putting up winning seasons and playoff appearances. In one draft, they are given a compensatory selection, with which they see this QB prospect that they kinda like. They say, "Why not? Never hurts to draft a QB, and this guy looks pretty good for a 6th rounder." That pick ends up winning them three Super Bowls. His name gets mentioned in conversations about the greatest QB to ever play the game.

And you say there's no luck involved.


...Ooooooooookay

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578511)

How is that illogical? He makes a good point.

So many people are over here saying we HAVE to select a QB with our pick, acting like we've tossed every pick in every draft away.

The reality of it is, we've built some pretty damned good teams passing on "sure thing" QB's that didn't turn out to be a "sure thing", and we've also passed on guys who became great talents. But what irks me, is people don't understand that we didn't pass on them because they weren't good enough, we passed on them because at that time, we didn't need them in their raw form, and we had no concrete indication that they'd ever become "what they are".

The thing is, when you have a franchise QB, or you think you do, you generally don't draft QB's inside of the fourth round unless either A. he's a highly talented Project QB, or because you're ready to start grooming his heir.

So far, our Front Office, Coaching Staff, and Owners have thought every year that we had our guy with Cassel, and with Green, and so forth, but the reality is, we've just had re-tread QB's who were good enough to make us forget about setting up a franchise guy for the future, but not good enough to keep us competitive for year after year.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578530)

It's illogical because it spits in the face of the fact that great QBs make up such a ****ing huge portion of the Super Bowl Winning probability pie.

The reason why 30 years of failure/30 years of no 1st round QB works is because the first round TENDS TO BE where these guys are to be found. At the very least, drafting a QB in the first round shows that the team is very conscious of how important the QB position is.

If there were the same success rate for teams that vacate all of their draft picks and then win the Super Bowl, MAYBE you'd have an argument.

Until we see some data on that, then yes, it absolutely is a false equivalence.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 9578526)

Where did I say there was no luck involved? At some level, every pick is lucky. The Colts are lucky they drafted #1 in the years of Manning and Luck. The Chiefs aren't lucky in that way.

What I said was that saying they were lucky is stupid, specifically because

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 9578535)

It's not a false equivalence and, again, you're smart enough to know that. You are also smart enough to know that you find SB winning QBs outside the first round just about as often as you find them inside the first round. The data backs that up.

If it was all about being taken #1, or even taken in the first round, Alex Smith would still be in SF.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578530)

It's illogical because it spits in the face of the fact that great QBs make up such a ****ing huge portion of the Super Bowl Winning probability pie.

The reason why 30 years of failure/30 years of no 1st round QB works is because the first round TENDS TO BE where these guys are to be found. At the very least, drafting a QB in the first round shows that the team is very conscious of how important the QB position is.

If there were the same success rate for teams that vacate all of their draft picks and then win the Super Bowl, MAYBE you'd have an argument.

Until we see some data on that, then yes, it absolutely is a false equivalence.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578647)

Where exactly does it show that my statement spits in the face of anything?

All it does is point out the fact that not picking a QB #1 doesn't throw every pick away. That great teams are still built through the draft regardless of whether or not they drafted a QB to get there.

For as many times as you can come up with a 1st round pick getting a team to the playoffs, I'll show you just as many 1st round picks who didn't get to the playoffs.

Furthermore, I'll show you QB's winning in the playoffs that weren't 1st round picks.

You don't NEED a first round QB to make it to the playoffs. You don't NEED a first round QB to win in the playoffs, and you don't NEED a first round QB to win a super bowl.

Those statements aren't illogical, what is illogical, however, is suggesting you DO need a first round QB to get anywhere in this league.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578456)

What is more likely? The Chiefs trading the #1 pick to a division rival? Or the Raiders trading up to #2 or selecting Geno with the #3, KNOWING that if we stay in the #1 spot, we won't waste the pick on Geno?

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578664)

The illogical statement was, "Why is it so important to draft a QB just because it hasn't been done in 30 years? The team also hasn't vacated all of its draft picks in 30 years, maybe it should try doing that."

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578671)

Quote it, I don't believe you can.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578459)

This post made my day, because he really hits on a point most Chiefs fans are too drowned in koolaid to understand.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 9578667)

Why would you call it a waste?
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578681)

Because we won't be spending a pick on Geno Smith period. That's why.

Why spend a pick on a QB who's no better than your 2nd and 3rd string guys, after you just gave up two 2nd's for a starting QB you think could be the last piece to your playoff puzzle, when you can sign a tackle, guard, Wide Receiver, or whatever, that instantly makes your team better.

Drafting Geno #1 overall doesn't make us immediately better. You know what does?

Joeckel, Warmack, Lotuleilei, Fisher, Milliner, etc.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578676)

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=151

To which you said...

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578697)

You didn't quote it.

The statement he made was putting the shoe on the other foot and pointing out how stupid your statement was using irony as a tool for comparison.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578690)

Nothing makes us immediately better except MAYBE a pass rusher. Our 1.1 pick is just not going to have much of an opportunity to make a difference in his rookie year. It's that ****ing simple.

Unless you're advocating drafting an ILB, G, C, or RB2 at 1.1

May as well take a ****ing QB

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578720)

God, you couldn't be more wrong.

In our style of a 3-4, we don't need another pass rusher, we have plenty. Tamba Hali and Justin Houston really are all the pass rushers we need. DE's in our style of a 3-4 are less about pass rushing technique and more about a bull rush/run stopping approach. So saying we need a pass rusher, or that the only thing that could make this team better is a pass rusher, is stupid. That just adds depth.

We could immediately use:

1. RT
2. LG
3. Center

Positions that Joeckel, Fisher, and/or Warmack could fill immediately. And saying the 1.1 isn't going to make a difference in his rookie year is the most idiotic thing I've heard in quite a long time, our 1.1 will be an immediate starter on this team. If that isn't "making a difference" I don't know what is.

We could also immediately use:

1. Wide Receiver
2. Inside Linebacker
3. Cornerback

Guys like Patterson, Austin, Te'o, Milliner, Rhodes, and Ogletree.


If we could ask for a best case scenario, its going to be trading back with the Bills, Jets, or whomever into the 8-17 range, and picking up an extra pick or two.

Drafting Geno smith would be a major setback to this regime.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578729)

You advocate drafting a RT, LG, C, WR, ILB, or a CB at 1.1?

I'm just trying to make sure you're really this dumb. I want to get this right.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578716)

It was a ****ing fallacy, you moron. For reasons I've already ****ing explained.

A: Drafting a QB in the first round is the most likely way to find a franchise starter. We haven't done so in 30 years. Maybe we should change that.
B: You also haven't vacated all your draft picks. Do you want to change to that strategy?

That's what he ****ing said, right? That's a fallacy. It's the exact same thing as:

A: All my friends built successful football teams by drafting a QB in the first round.
B: If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578727)

For someone who says you don't NEED a first round QB to be succesful, it's a little ironic that same person says you need to spend the first overall pick on a LG or C, or for that matter a CB when we just signed 2 in free agency to start, or a 34 ILB.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578729)

You advocate drafting a RT, LG, C, WR, ILB, or a CB at 1.1?

I'm just trying to make sure you're really this dumb. I want to get this right.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578735)

In a draft thats extremely deep at those exact positions, that wouldn't be the best idea.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578748)

The 1st round is the best place to find a franchise QB. It isn't the only place, as it's not the only place to find a franchise anything. But the percentages are better, as better players are generally taken there.


The Chiefs picked a shit year to be there at the top, when there isn't an elite guy at any spot there. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578720)

God, you couldn't be more wrong.

In our style of a 3-4, we don't need another pass rusher, we have plenty. Tamba Hali and Justin Houston really are all the pass rushers we need. DE's in our style of a 3-4 are less about pass rushing technique and more about a bull rush/run stopping approach. So saying we need a pass rusher, or that the only thing that could make this team better is a pass rusher, is stupid. That just adds depth.

We could immediately use:

1. RT
2. LG
3. Center

Positions that Joeckel, Fisher, and/or Warmack could fill immediately. And saying the 1.1 isn't going to make a difference in his rookie year is the most idiotic thing I've heard in quite a long time, our 1.1 will be an immediate starter on this team. If that isn't "making a difference" I don't know what is.

We could also immediately use:

1. Wide Receiver
2. Inside Linebacker
3. Cornerback

Guys like Patterson, Austin, Te'o, Milliner, Rhodes, and Ogletree.


If we could ask for a best case scenario, its going to be trading back with the Bills, Jets, or whomever into the 8-17 range, and picking up an extra pick or two.

Drafting Geno smith would be a major setback to this regime.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578753)

So in this thread, you aren't advocating drafting any of these guys?

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578746)

Really? I said we need to spend the first overall pick on those positions?

Quote me saying that.

I merely pointed out that we have positions of need that would immediately impact this team as a starter, over selecting a QB who at best, is your #3 QB this year.



No, I am not advocating that. I never once stated that the selection would be based on the 1.1.

Again, try a little reading comprehension and stop making assumptions.



According to whom?

Deep as in plenty of future talent? Or deep as in plenty of starter talent?

As it sits right now, there's probably 3 starting corners and 2 starting 3-4 ILB's in this draft.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578729)

You advocate drafting a RT, LG, C, WR, ILB, or a CB at 1.1?

I'm just trying to make sure you're really this dumb. I want to get this right.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578760)

You list Teo as a starting 34 ILB, when thats not even what he fits into. There are about 5 34 ILB prospects that will be available in the 3 round who could start immediately.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578763)

So I just quoted you saying that and you verified that yes, you would draft any of those guys at 1. Guys who would play RT, LG, C, #4 CB, #3 WR for us.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578767)

He could immediately plug into our defense and replace belcher at belcher's level of play. Whether that he's natural fitment or not, make no difference.

Also, I don't see 5 ILB's available in round 3 that could start for us immediately.

Please name them.

Originally Posted by KC native (Post 9578764)

How dare you question the PhD mechanic! Don't you know that all his hours for his ASE cert make him an expert in everything?

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578768)

And with the universal ignore function, he no longer exists on my computer.

Originally Posted by KC native (Post 9578774)

ROFL Are you ****ing serious? Teo is ****ing slow and stupid.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578778)

Like Belcher, God Rest is Soul, was a sprinter and a scholar.

Originally Posted by KC native (Post 9578764)

How dare you question the PhD mechanic! Don't you know that all his hours for his ASE cert make him an expert in everything?

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578740)

Of all 32 teams today, the top 16 (successful) rosters were not all put together with QB's from the 1st round.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578746)

No, I am not advocating that. I never once stated that the selection would be based on the 1.1.

Again, try a little reading comprehension and stop making assumptions.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578780)

Our OL struggled at not being versatile last year. OL's need time together to gel, which is why I'm not big on keeping ALbert for a year, drafting a LT to play at RT for a year then moving him over.

Either trade Albert or draft a pass rusher. Or a DL. Or both and take Sheldon Richardson.

Originally Posted by KC native (Post 9578781)

**** belcher's soul. Teo would not step in at Belcher's level. He couldn't keep up against Bama. What the **** makes you think he will step into the NFL at a starter's level?

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578772)

I said I'd draft them. I didn't say where.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578787)

I'm not quoting the rest of your post because it all seemed to hinge on this loose piece of shit that you think invalidates me somehow. If you were paying attention, I already brought up this point. Obviously you weren't, though. The rest of the post is a gigantic ****ing lie that completely ignores what I'm trying to say.

Second of all, back the **** up. I only ever responded to you because you were extolling JustPassinBy's terrible and fallacious post. I'm not getting into a QB debate with someone like you. I thought it would be okay just to focus on that one argument, but clearly even that's beyond your reach.

Explain how I made JustPassinBy's argument misleading and off subject.

I'll wait.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578795)

Then what the ****'s the point of bringing up impact with the 1.1 pick and then listing the positions you did? Sure as **** looked like you said, "The Chiefs can find an immediate impact player at any of these positions."

It's either that or you're backpedaling something fierce. I'm going to guess that's what you really meant.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578803)

YOU'RE SAYING THE CHIEFS SHOULD ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR NEEDS AT SOME POINT IN THEIR DRAFT?

OH MY ****ING GOD WHY DIDN'T WE THINK OF THIS BEFORE?

Originally Posted by MeatRock (Post 9578820)

Drafting a QB or a pass rusher is the only option if Dorsey stays put at 1.1. QB's and pass rushers are the currency of the NFL in today's game.

If Alex Smith turns out to be great and a late bloomer while Geno turns out to be average, you can always trade QB's for high draft picks.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578827)

And I'll put a lifetime ban, me vs. you, that says that if we stay at the 1.1, we draft someone who isn't a pass rusher or QB.

Why?

Because we don't need one.

Originally Posted by MeatRock (Post 9578830)

**** you and your life time ban. I just don't care that much about you.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578840)

Are you guys still debating the "mechanic"?


Jesus, people here need to use the universal ignore. It's really glorious.

Originally Posted by ChiefAshhole20 (Post 9578880)

I just simply can't understand the notion that we shouldn't draft a QB first overall because he isn't worth it, but would rather address the position 3 years down the road when we can no longer get quality play out of him and are forced to pick up another retread QB (which apparently is the absolute worst solution possible according to CP). This is our way out from QB purgatory people... If we draft Geno, that is the end of our QB troubles for years to come, if we don't, prepare to trade for Josh Freeman or Andy Dalton in a few years.

Originally Posted by MeatRock (Post 9578865)

It doesn't matter how confident you think you are. You have absolutely ZERO knowledge of who the Chiefs will draft. Period. Your magical mechanic PHD cannot help you here. You're all speculation.

I'm telling you that in today's game, the QB and pass rusher is the smart move at 1.1. Dorsey told you and everyone else that they will not just draft for need. They will take the best player available.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9578869)

There won't be any trading down either.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578841)

It isn't about getting me banned, you idiot. Its about having confidence in what you preach.


I'm saying right now, there is absolutely ZERO chance that the Chiefs draft either a pass rusher or a QB in the first round of this draft with the first selection of the draft.

I'm challenging you to a lifetime ban not because I want to see you gone, but because I'm THAT CONFIDENT in my analysis.

Originally Posted by ChiefAshhole20 (Post 9578880)

I just simply can't understand the notion that we shouldn't draft a QB first overall because he isn't worth it, but would rather address the position 3 years down the road when we can no longer get quality play out of him and are forced to pick up another retread QB (which apparently is the absolute worst solution possible according to CP). This is our way out from QB purgatory people... If we draft Geno, that is the end of our QB troubles for years to come, if we don't, prepare to trade for Josh Freeman or Andy Dalton in a few years.

Originally Posted by Gravedigger (Post 9578889)

Analysis is a pretty generous term for pissing in the wind and hoping it doesn't hit you in the face.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578844)

You know they are, it says my name right there between the posts regardless if I am on ignore or not.

I learned this with Sauto when I ignored him.

Now you're just amusement trolling. LMAO

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9578896)

I assume O.City has super ignore, which automatically hides any post that directly quotes you or is posted by you.

And I'm not talking about, "This message is hidden because SNR is on your ignore list." It removes it completely from view. Like it never happened.

Originally Posted by Exoter175 (Post 9578844)

You know they are, it says my name right there between the posts regardless if I am on ignore or not.

I learned this with Sauto when I ignored him.

Now you're just amusement trolling. LMAO