YES, WHY DON'T WE TRY THAT? Herein lies the butthurt: We know beyond a shadow of doubt what Alex Smith is bringing to this party: a game-managing bag o' dickhammers. Period. We can not possibly BEGIN to know what Geno and the other QB's will bring to their teams. Not a mother****ing chance in hell can you know. Not TODAY, mother****ers! But soon...
Posted via Mobile Device

Well, I also think he (meaning Fisher) was the top player on their board. While I didn't see him as an elite prospect, it's pretty clear that they did.

And this draft appeared to be exactly what some of us had been saying all along, it seems after listening to and reading a lot of post-draft discussion. If there were any elite prospects, the list started and ended with Fisher and Joeckel (both arguable in my mind...). This was a first round filled with what would normally be mid-first to mid-second prospects. Unfortunately for us, so was the entire second round. This would've been a great year to have that 34th pick.

I was not making any kind of value judgement on the selection (as you can see in the last post I made, which obviously you couldn't have seen since I hadn't finished it yet).

However, if that really was the plan, you don't need the 1.1 for that, and you don't have to do it 3-4 years ahead of time.

I think I'd rather be the team not relying on UDFA's to "beat the odds". Goddamnit man, this ISN'T "Rudy" for ****'s sake...
Posted via Mobile Device

It was interesting listening to Dorsey's interview on Between the Lines yesterday. He basically said the character issues being expressed in the articles about Geno Smith post draft were a load of bullshit that he didn't see in our interview with him.

No, it doesn't. But most NFL scouts (guys that get paid lots of $$$$$ to do this for a living) thought the elite 'potential' existed at the Tackle spot, whereas almost all scouts across the board thought the 'potential' of the QB class was weak.

Don't believe me? Look at the results of the draft . . . .

That entirely contradicts the rest of your post.

Even if their ceilings are identical, Smith looks about 100 times more likely to reach it.

So you approve of signing undrafted QBs in the search of a franchise QB? And you prefer that to spending the ~40th pick on a guy that had am awful lot of 1st round noise about him? Seriously?

Exactly. The "top tier" was in reality second-tier at best. Soooooooo....why not draft the best available QB for tuteledge under Reid and all these other supercalifragilistic coaches, instead of herp-derping with a ****ing O-line that was easily serviceable to a QB not named "Cassel"?
Posted via Mobile Device

You do understand that no one thought there was a franchise QB in this draft.

It was never, ever going to happen. I think we all knew that all along. Or we should have.

"Relying on" is a little strong, don't you think?

I think the Chiefs just took a shot on an UDFA and said 'what the hell, why not?'

You would prefer they spend a #1 pick on the 'best' QB in a sh*t QB class?

JaMarcus Russell says hello . . . .

there are 3 or so teams with fairly sketchy arrangements in place at the QB position that passed twice on every QB not named Manuel. If Geno Smith ends up being Giovanni Carmazzi, won't people be glad he wasn't picked? I thought this was a standard QB class as opposed to last year's super-class. It seems the teams thought it was the 2000 draft.

Single and multiple teams **** up in the draft all the time. EVERY SINGLE TEAM doesn't usually do it.

This. :clap:

Forget about #1. How about spending #34 on the ''best' QB in a shit QB class". He would've been there, and they'd have looked like geniuses for doing it.

By all means NO. I'd prefer we keep our outstanding track record of success with other peoples cast-offs!
Posted via Mobile Device