ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   NFL Draft Fisher Willing To Play RT (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=272191)

Bowser 04-17-2013 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595550)
Often, BEP makes more sense than you do. This would be one of those times.

Vandenburg > Geno at #1, becasue any quarterback is better than a left tackle according to you.

Your cediliblity = lost

RealSNR 04-17-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 9595609)
But here's where this argument falls apart. I agree, an elite QB is more important than an elite LT, but it looks like the Chiefs, and they're not alone, feel there is no elite QB in the draft. It seems they,and others, feel there's no difference making QB, or a QB that now, and in the near future, will be as good as Alex Smith.

You can say you must take the QB that will be really good, and win games for your team, and you'd be right, but you can't just take a QB #1 that you don't believe in. In that case a LT that's close to guaranteed to be good for a while is a better pick.

Let's ignore the fact that Andy Reid is sexually attracted to Alex Smith the way Scott Pioli was to Matt Cassel. Let's also ignore the apparent lack of interest in Geno Smith by a good portion of NFL scouts.

I have a pretty good LT who wants to get paid and WILL play for my team for at least one more season since he signed the franchise tag. I've got some meh options at RT who might be good or they might not, but theoretically I should be able to find a reasonable starter out of those three choices (Stephenson, Allen, Schwartz).

So I can solidify either tackle position in a league that doesn't seem to care about great LTs, and where the past several Super Bowl champions have won without top 10 players at the position.

Or I can take the top QB in the class, who only has correctable flaws in his technique, but is a demonstrably hard worker and dedicated football player. I can sit him for one or even two full years under the tutelage of Alex Smith (starter before Kaepernick) and more importantly, Andy Reid and Doug Pederson.

I'm not going to settle for the temporary value of having a slightly improved offensive line (theoretically) that will solidify the group even if Albert leaves. That's what crack whores do. THAT'S what desperate teams do.

Patient teams think about the future that won't always have Derrick Johnson, Tamba Hali, and Jamaal Charles. It knows that Dwayne Bowe and Brandon Flowers have only a few seasons of prime left before their skills may deteriorate. And to make up for those deficiencies, the best way to win through that talent loss is to have a carefully developed starting QB. That's EXACTLY how the Ravens won the Super Bowl.

And if we wait much longer on that QB, it may be too late before the structure we've built collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

milkman 04-17-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595673)
It depends on what you mean by very good and how likely he is to achieve that potential. In general, my answer would be yes, of course.

Mel Kiper's exact words this morning on Mike and Mike.

I think Geno Smith is going to be a "very good" QB in 3 years.

patteeu 04-17-2013 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 9595676)
Vandenburg > Geno at #1, becasue any quarterback is better than a left tackle according to you.

Your cediliblity = lost

:stupid:

RealSNR 04-17-2013 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595618)
I didn't do that, you literally did. I asked you a simple question that you haven't answered yet. If you don't think Vandenberg has a legit shot to greatly improve the Chiefs, then there's a problem with your original attempt to talk down to me in post 26.

**** you. I shouldn't have to clarify that I mean the top QB in a class. You know goddamn well I didn't just mean any turd of a QB.

patteeu 04-17-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9595694)
Mel Kiper's exact words this morning on Mike and Mike.

I think Geno Smith is going to be a "very good" QB in 3 years.

Suddenly we're supposed to hang on Mel Kiper's words? That seems a bit hypocritical.

B14ckmon 04-17-2013 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 9595694)
Mel Kiper's exact words this morning on Mike and Mike.

I think Geno Smith is going to be a "very good" QB in 3 years.

Mel Kiper was one of the more prominent ones saying he liked Gabbert over Cam Newton.

patteeu 04-17-2013 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9595702)
**** you. I shouldn't have to clarify that I mean the top QB in a class. You know goddamn well I didn't just mean any turd of a QB.

Yes, you shouldn't have to make cogent arguments at all. We should all just accept your wisdom without question. Get over yourself, girl.

Bowser 04-17-2013 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595699)
:stupid:

I'm just pointing out what you said, dummy. I see the point you're trying to make, but you picked a laughable player/scenario to try and make that point.

The bottom line is that you buy what the scouts were selling early in the offseason when it comes to Geno.

patteeu 04-17-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 9595715)
I'm just pointing out what you said, dummy. I see the point you're trying to make, but you picked a laughable player/scenario to try and make that point.

The bottom line is that you buy what the scouts were selling early in the offseason when it comes to Geno.

No you aren't. I didn't say anything like that. I picked that player to make it as easy as possible for morons to understand the point I was making. It seems I can't dumb it down enough for you though.

I didn't even say anything about Vandenberg. He was part of a question I asked. Good lord.

Bowser 04-17-2013 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595723)
No you aren't. I didn't say anything like that. I picked that player to make it as easy as possible for morons to understand the point I was making. It seems I can't dumb it down enough for you though.

Your point was reeruned and you suck as a human being.

BigMeatballDave 04-17-2013 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 9595311)
If Albert was really a top-10 tackle, teams would dump a 2nd for him. The market is clearly indicating they don't think he's all that.

This doesn't mean shit.

There is no need to trade for him now.

patteeu 04-17-2013 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 9595730)
Your point was reeruned and you suck as a human being.

That may be true, but you were still embarrassingly wrong.

milkman 04-17-2013 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595706)
Suddenly we're supposed to hang on Mel Kiper's words? That seems a bit hypocritical.

Not saying we should hang on Mel Kiper's words here.

But this illustrates what I, and others, have said about this class.

People have been looking at this class through prism that has been skewed by recent drafts.

It has only been a recent phenomonom for QBs to start right away and be expected to excel from the very first game.

Prior to the last couple of years, even if QBs were asked to start right away, everyone recognized that there should be a development period.

QBs were drafted high because they had the potential to excel, in time.

Almost every draft expert agrees that Geno has potential.

But now, they downgrade him, and Barkley, and others, because they might not excel immediately.

Bowser 04-17-2013 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9595740)
That may be true, but you were still embarrassingly wrong.

Eh, you don't suck as a human being, just as a Chiefs fan. Anyone that wants to draft a tackle over a quarterback does, really.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.