Not taking the best QB in the draft at #1 pretty much is the same as taking a G in that spot.

(I'll spot you a crazy ass good DE as the lone exception)

You do realize the Chargers didn't want to trade Eli, right?

I can DEFINITELY see Geno falling to Oakland.

you can DEFINITELY go **** yourself.

Kidding. Pryor will probably end up being better than Geno.

you outta ya gat damn mind

Pryor is amazing throwing on the run. And can run himself.

Geno is too one dimensional.

So are you

Trollz b Trollin'

Yes, so what? In this scenario, we wouldn't want Geno either, because we'd have an opportunity to get an equal QB plus some high quality picks instead.

Who's mult is this douche?

It's a tough question, but the answer is ultimately a simple one:

Because it's really really hard to win in this league.

Think about it - a lot of us are saying that the 'risk' of taking a QB is overblown and you can't be governed by fear. We're all willing to concede that a team in the Chiefs situation can't afford to be risk-averse. Now when we have been making that argument, it's been in response to the idea that Smith is too risky a pick, but the logic holds true no matter what the question is.

So, if you like Wilson a lot and think there's a solid chance he'd be available at 4 - sure, you could take him at 1, but that's very very risk averse thinking. At that point I think you need take a big deep breath, grab your balls and pull the trigger.

The upside is immense. We're talking about still getting your QB PLUS getting the WR you need (or CB) in the 2nd PLUS potentially getting another free impact player in next year's draft.

That's a ton of return and it's a ton of return where you may still get the guy you wanted all along.

If it's okay to accept the risk of failure in Geno to get the massive upside reward, why isn't it also okay to accept the risk of losing out on Wilson to get the massive upside reward of getting Wilson, Xavier Rhodes and another premium player next season?

I'd make the deal. Actually, that's probably not true - I wouldn't make the deal because I say there is a big gap between Smith and Wilson, but the hypothetical says that I don't see a massive distinction between the two. With that prerequisite in place, I make the deal.