Chiefs The Chiefs shouldn't select a QB in the 1st round - Page 37

kcbubb · 01-29-2009, 10:52 AM

The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell.

The only defense in the league that was worse than the Chiefs was the 0-16 Detroit Lions. The Chiefs need, at a minimum, three new starters on defense (2 LB's & DE) if we stay in the 4-3. The Chiefs need defensive talent.

If the Chiefs do not swap first round picks with the Patriots for Cassell, the Chiefs would benefit the most by trading down and acquiring more picks and possibly getting more value out of their first round pick instead of reaching for a player. The Chiefs need defense with their first pick.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-02-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

that even made me laugh. I agree with everything you said. But I disagree with how you do it.

I think you can ruin a QB and I also think you can develop one.

I don't think drafting Sanchez and asking him to make up for a terrible offense will help him develop. I think he is more likely to turn out like Alex Smith or David Carr. For a young QB to do well, there normally is a base offense of running the ball. We don't have that. Think of our offense before the spread, like when we played Carolina and got pushed all over the field. Not a good environment to become the next Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan.

Who said that Sanchez or Stafford would even start from day one next year?

Hell, you can bring them in for the last half of '09 after Thigpen succeeds in piling on the FAIL trying to run a normal offense, and once they've become accustomed to the speed of the game.

kcbubb · 02-02-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

DUDE, you DON'T DRAFT FOR NEED.

That's how the Chiefs arrived at this position. They have the most talent-depleted roster in the league because they kept drafting defensive tackles because they needed one and they traded away valuable picks for players that were effective (and two for a coach) for less than 5 years.

NEVER. DRAFT. FOR. NEED.

that's my point. I can't believe we had the same conclusion, but you didn't get my point. If the Chiefs draft Sanchez, they NEED o-line help. But it is not likely the Chiefs first three picks of the draft will be QB, OL, OL. It is more likely that the chiefs will draft defense with the next two picks just due to the odds.

THEREFORE, we can conclude the Chiefs line will most likely be bad next year. Maybe somebody like Barry Richardson develops or the chiefs draft a great RT in the 4th round, but the odds are we will have a bad line next year, which will in turn make Sanchez a bad QB.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-02-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

that's my point. I can't believe we had the same conclusion, but you didn't get my point. If the Chiefs draft Sanchez, they NEED o-line help. But it is not likely the Chiefs first three picks of the draft will be QB, OL, OL. It is more likely that the chiefs will draft defense with the next two picks just due to the odds.

THEREFORE, we can conclude the Chiefs line will most likely be bad next year. Maybe somebody like Barry Richardson develops or the chiefs draft a great RT in the 4th round, but the odds are we will have a bad line next year, which will in turn make Sanchez a bad QB.

Really?

Like the bad Pittsburgh OL made Roethlisberger a bad QB?

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-02-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

that's my point. I can't believe we had the same conclusion, but you didn't get my point. If the Chiefs draft Sanchez, they NEED o-line help. But it is not likely the Chiefs first three picks of the draft will be QB, OL, OL. It is more likely that the chiefs will draft defense with the next two picks just due to the odds.

THEREFORE, we can conclude the Chiefs line will most likely be bad next year. Maybe somebody like Barry Richardson develops or the chiefs draft a great RT in the 4th round, but the odds are we will have a bad line next year, which will in turn make Sanchez a bad QB.

Due to what "odds"? "We can conclude". Huh?

If an offensive lineman is the best pick at #34 overall, YOU TAKE HIM.

There are no "odds" involved.

Furthermore, since this draft is weak on the defensive side of the ball, the "odds" are that an offensive player is more likely to be the choice when the Chiefs choose in rounds 2, 3, & 4.

kcbubb · 02-02-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Really?

Like the bad Pittsburgh OL made Roethlisberger a bad QB?

oh.. that's right. the steelers running game sucked when Ben was a rookie. Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker were terrible.

kcbubb · 02-02-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Due to what "odds"? "We can conclude". Huh?

If an offensive lineman is the best pick at #34 overall, YOU TAKE HIM.

There are no "odds" involved.

Furthermore, since this draft is weak on the defensive side of the ball, the "odds" are that an offensive player is more likely to be the choice when the Chiefs choose in rounds 2, 3, & 4.

how about this... when the chiefs pick in the first three rounds, it is unlikely that the best player available will be an offensive lineman 2 out of the 3 rounds.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-02-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

oh.. that's right. the steelers running game sucked when Ben was a rookie. Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker were terrible.

Bettis had 368 yards in 2005. Parker had 1,200.

I certainly wouldn't be bragging about those numbers.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-02-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

oh.. that's right. the steelers running game sucked when Ben was a rookie. Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker were terrible.

So, which is it?

Lack of a running game, or a bad OL - which are you claiming will "ruin" a young QB?

If you know jack-shit about football, you'd know that your examples, David Carr and Alex Smith weren't "ruined" by bad OL play.

They were ruined by a lack of ****ing talent.

You can't draft talentless, insecure headcases #1 overall and expect them to be successful in ANY system.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-02-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

how about this... when the chiefs pick in the first three rounds, it is unlikely that the best player available will be an offensive lineman 2 out of the 3 rounds.

Again, why?

It's been stated here and on nearly every draft site that the 2009 NFL Draft is not a good year for defensive players.

So why in the hell do you think that defensive players at the end of the first day and on the second day will be valued higher than their offensive counterparts?

You supposition makes no sense.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-02-2009, 02:07 PM

The Dense is strong in this one...

kcbubb · 02-02-2009, 02:07 PM

I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited.

You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play.

If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.

**DeezNutz** · 02-02-2009, 02:08 PM

**The Franchise** · 02-02-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited.

You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play.

If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.

kcbubb · 02-02-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

So, which is it?

Lack of a running game, or a bad OL - which are you claiming will "ruin" a young QB?

If you know jack-shit about football, you'd know that your examples, David Carr and Alex Smith weren't "ruined" by bad OL play.

They were ruined by a lack of ****ing talent.

You can't draft talentless, insecure headcases #1 overall and expect them to be successful in ANY system.

David Carr didn't have bad o-line play....... hmmm. how many times was he sacked in his first few years in the league???

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-02-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB.

The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited.

You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play.

If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.

James Harrison was cut three times by the Steelers, is 30 years old and was an undrafted free agent in 2002.

Again, your supposition makes absolutely no sense.

01-29-2009, 10:52 AM
kcbubb Veteran Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $6066719	The Chiefs shouldn't select a QB in the 1st round The Chiefs should sign a free agent QB like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or, if the Patriots would agree to it, swap first round picks with the Patriots for Matt Cassell. The only defense in the league that was worse than the Chiefs was the 0-16 Detroit Lions. The Chiefs need, at a minimum, three new starters on defense (2 LB's & DE) if we stay in the 4-3. The Chiefs need defensive talent. If the Chiefs do not swap first round picks with the Patriots for Cassell, the Chiefs would benefit the most by trading down and acquiring more picks and possibly getting more value out of their first round pick instead of reaching for a player. The Chiefs need defense with their first pick.
Posts: 2,367

02-02-2009, 02:07 PM	#550
Sweet Daddy Hate Unsparing Join Date: Aug 2008 Casino cash: $10004900	The Dense is strong in this one... __________________ 1. Merciless, severe. 2. Given freely and generously. 100% refusal to overrate 20 year Head Coaches with ZERO **ing rings as a Head Coach. CP's Official Professor of 'Dem Blues for 2019/2020!**
Posts: 77,135

02-02-2009, 02:07 PM	#551
kcbubb Veteran Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $6066719	I just wish you guys could get as excited about a player like James Harrison as you do about a QB. The root of this is more for entertainment than about football. You like to be entertained. It really isn't about building the best team for you. You just want to have a dramatic offense to keep you excited. You guys are the kind of fans that leave to get food or go to the bathroom when the defense is on the field. You aren't real fans of football. You aren't about winning. You are all about cheering and getting excited for the big play. If you weren't this way, you wouldn't get so emotional about building a team with a multitude of picks through defense. There is nothing wrong with my idea of building through defense. I'm not the first to have it. You may disagree. But this wouldn't be such a hostile thread if people just disagreed. You care so much because you love offense, not because you love football.
Posts: 2,367