|
|
02-01-2013, 04:57 PM | #1 | |
....
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somewhere Kansas
Casino cash: $8379352
VARSITY
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 27,740
|
02-01-2013, 12:16 PM | #2 |
MVP
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Helena, MT
Casino cash: $2688849
|
Lmao sorter.
|
Posts: 18,594
|
02-01-2013, 12:33 PM | #3 |
Resident Glue Sniffer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Casino cash: $3889358
|
Chip Kelly loves Geno, tell him to get bent.
__________________
Life is 99% inspiration, 1% Perspiration, and 1% Attention to Detial. RIP & Godspeed: Saccoppo Lonewolf Ed Fire Me Boy |
Posts: 37,394
|
02-01-2013, 12:44 PM | #4 |
Amateur Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Casino cash: $4167091
|
The first three picks will be QBs. Absolutely not.
|
Posts: 15,298
|
02-01-2013, 12:48 PM | #5 |
Unsparing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $10004900
|
jokel doesnt even make the top ten. Boom!
Posted via Mobile Device |
Posts: 77,135
|
02-01-2013, 12:49 PM | #6 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jul 2009
Casino cash: $1574064
|
This makes it a risk we don't get our qb. That's why we wanted the first overall pick. Don't mess around. The qb is more important, worry about te rest later
|
Posts: 82,261
|
02-01-2013, 12:54 PM | #7 |
MVP
Join Date: Aug 2011
Casino cash: $3766550
|
at the idiocy in this thread.
Yeah, the draft is really going to go QB, QB, QB with the first three picks. ****ing people baffle me. |
Posts: 12,785
|
02-01-2013, 01:16 PM | #8 |
'Tis my eye!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chiefsplanet
Casino cash: $10239900
|
|
Posts: 100,035
|
02-02-2013, 10:31 AM | #9 |
Sauntering Vaguely Downwards
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, Mo
Casino cash: $1569099
|
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.
__________________
"If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags." |
Posts: 62,259
|
02-01-2013, 01:30 PM | #10 |
Amateur Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Casino cash: $4167091
|
Chiefs, Jaguars, Raiders, and Eagles will all be looking for new QBs. Those are the first four picks in the draft. Then you have the Cardinals that might trade up. Both the Browns and Chargers have new regimes and may look for new QBs. Both the Jets and the Buccaneers may also look for a new QB. That's within the top 15. It's idiotic to take the risk and miss out on either Geno, Wilson, or Barkley. Extra draft picks mean doodly shit if you do not have a franchise QB.
|
Posts: 15,298
|
02-01-2013, 01:36 PM | #11 | |
Sexiest Athlete
Join Date: Apr 2001
Casino cash: $51925
|
Quote:
Will there be better QBs in next year's draft? I don't know. |
|
Posts: 12,672
|
02-01-2013, 01:38 PM | #12 |
MVP
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Helena, MT
Casino cash: $2688849
|
Next year's crop looks weaker to me. Especially when you consider that this year's crop had a much better outlook last year.
|
Posts: 18,594
|
02-01-2013, 01:39 PM | #13 | |
MVP
Join Date: Aug 2011
Casino cash: $3766550
|
Quote:
That doesn't mean you don't take a QB, and I think this whole trade scenario works only if you still take a QB at #4. |
|
Posts: 12,785
|
02-01-2013, 01:41 PM | #14 | |
Sexiest Athlete
Join Date: Apr 2001
Casino cash: $51925
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 12,672
|
02-01-2013, 01:54 PM | #15 | |
'Tis my eye!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chiefsplanet
Casino cash: $10239900
|
Quote:
He never explicitly stated anything remotely like that. He stated that Dorsey and Reid hadn't told him that there was a QB worth the #1 pick in the draft. When asked if he thought they could tell him that later he said he didn't THINK that would happen. That was in a radio interview MINUTES after Dorsey was hired, so the comment isn't worth a hill of beans. |
|
Posts: 100,035
|
|
|