Will the Chiefs Consider a QB Now? - Page 3

Brothgar · 12-20-2011, 09:55 AM

Well there are a few things I have to think of here. First when was the last time Pioli traded up for anything let alone a QB? Secondly the way I see it Stanzi can't be given a shot until they are officially out of the playoffs at best he gets one garbage time game to show what he has but in all likelihood we will see Kyle Orton the rest of the way through. I think there could be a real QB controversy if Orton can win out if that happens your dreams of drafting a QB are essentially nil.

FUNBUNCHER · 12-20-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

I disagree. I think the best thing for the long term future of this club is to move up and take a QB.

The Chiefs haven't drafted a QB in the first round since 1983. They took Todd Blackledge over Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. Ouch. It's about time they took a chance on a guy that can be that franchise signal caller.

Ouch.

Now I know why you were pissed about my jocking Stanzi. He's status quo, not an obvious upgrade.

As a Skins fan, I too have franchise-QB-envy and want the Shanahan to do everything possible to snag one of the top 3 in 2012.

The Chiefs have been a successful franchise IMO the last 20 years with 2nd tier QBs, but if they ever had a bonafide top 5-10 NFL QB, you wonder how many more SBs they'd have by now.

DraftSavant · 12-20-2011, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Ouch.

Now I know why you were pissed about my jocking Stanzi. He's status quo, not an obvious upgrade.

As a Skins fan, I too have franchise-QB-envy and want the Shanahan to do everything possible to snag one of the top 3 in 2012.

The Chiefs have been a successful franchise IMO the last 20 years with 2nd tier QBs, but if they ever had a bonafide top 5-10 NFL QB, you wonder how many more SBs they'd have by now.

I think I'd put Trent Green in that 5-10 range. He just had an absolute craptastic defense to deal with, and that team wasn't built for long-term success.

FUNBUNCHER · 12-20-2011, 11:46 AM

I have a blind spot for Trent Green's post Redskin career(!)lol

Now Carlos Rogers is gonna make the pro bowl as a 49er, but for some reason Shahanan and Haslett thought Josh Wilson was an upgrade over 'Los.
ARGH.

ChiefMojo · 12-27-2011, 11:06 AM

I doubt the Chiefs draft a QB in the 1st round now. With Barkley staying and likely no chance at Luck/RGIII then I see the Chiefs taking a RT or even possibly a NT/3-4 ILB. Best bet would be someone like Martin or Rieff if I were to guess. This would be the perfect year for KC to actually now take a OT.

The question for the Chiefs now is not what QB they draft but who will they keep between Cassel and Orton? Either they re-sign Orton or let him go for a compensation pick. In Cassel's case he is either the starter with the release of Orton, he restructures his contract and becomes the back-up to Orton or he is outright released.

vidae · 12-27-2011, 11:11 AM

Barkley going back to school really hurt our chances to take one. If I had to guess I'd say we took Reiff or Poe in the first, with an outside shot at "reaching" for Tannehill, which I'd be happy with. I like him a lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Ouch.

Now I know why you were pissed about my jocking Stanzi. He's status quo, not an obvious upgrade.

That is exactly it. This is what we've been doing for almost 30 years. It's getting old and we have exactly 0 championships to show for it. I'm just sick of it.

ChiefMojo · 12-27-2011, 11:14 AM

Tannehill is fine but I don't want to draft him in the 1st round to be honest. I feel like he is nothing more than a Ponder type pick. Just a reach to grab a decent QB. I don't see him much better than Stanzi to be honest.

I'd much rather move forth with either Cassel or Orton than draft Tannehill. Which leads back to the point of drafting a RT/NT/3-4 ILB in the 1st.

vidae · 12-27-2011, 11:16 AM

Moving forward with "ok" QBs is why we're never a threat to do anything in the post-season. Hell, we're not even a threat to get there and it all starts with QB play.

I dunno. Maybe I'm being extreme here, I'm just sick of the same crap every year. Nothing changes and it's frustrating.

shylo3716 · 12-27-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

Moving forward with "ok" QBs is why we're never a threat to do anything in the post-season. Hell, we're not even a threat to get there and it all starts with QB play.

I dunno. Maybe I'm being extreme here, I'm just sick of the same crap every year. Nothing changes and it's frustrating.

Why don't you guys just trade for a guy who has been sitting around holding the clipboard. Plenty serviceable guys around the league that could flourish if given the opportunity.

onejayhawk · 12-27-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefMojo

Tannehill is fine but I don't want to draft him in the 1st round to be honest. I feel like he is nothing more than a Ponder type pick. Just a reach to grab a decent QB. I don't see him much better than Stanzi to be honest.

I'd much rather move forth with either Cassel or Orton than draft Tannehill. Which leads back to the point of drafting a RT/NT/3-4 ILB in the 1st.

Talk about positions usually taken in rounds 2-5.

I'll second drafting Tannehill, but would not mind using the 1st pick. I disagree on the type of Qb he is. At the least he has a better arm than Ponder.

J

PossibleCabbage · 12-27-2011, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

Talk about positions usually taken in rounds 2-5.

NTs are first round picks, in the case of special prospects, they can be high first round picks. It's among the most important positions on the defense.

descendency · 12-27-2011, 12:48 PM

Tannehill is a much better QB physically than Ponder.

Tannehill just suffers from some serious green-ness at the QB position. He has his great games and his terrible games. Just prepare for a mix of great and bad.

TACKLE · 12-27-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency

Tannehill is a much better QB physically than Ponder.

Tannehill just suffers from some serious green-ness at the QB position. He has his great games and his terrible games. Just prepare for a mix of great and bad.

True but if a team has a plan for developing him and are patient, the payoff could be big. He's very talented and does things innately well, such as his movement in the pocket, better than a lot of far more 'seasoned' QB's.

ChiefMojo · 12-27-2011, 02:31 PM

Which is why I'd much rather take him if he was in the 2nd round. I don't want a QB that you have to groom being the Chiefs 1st round pick. Either the 1st round QB plays right away or you don't use that pick on a QB at all. We have more dire needs then to see a 1st rounder sit on the bench for a year or so. The need of a quality starting RT or NT out weigh grooming a 1st round QB.

Also I just don't believe Tannehill is worth a top 15 pick... just my opinion.

AntoinCD · 12-27-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefMojo

Which is why I'd much rather take him if he was in the 2nd round. I don't want a QB that you have to groom being the Chiefs 1st round pick. Either the 1st round QB plays right away or you don't use that pick on a QB at all. We have more dire needs then to see a 1st rounder sit on the bench for a year or so. The need of a quality starting RT or NT out weigh grooming a 1st round QB.

Also I just don't believe Tannehill is worth a top 15 pick... just my opinion.

I really disagree with this. If you are confident in your development plan and believe that this will make this prospect your franchise QB then for damn sure it's worth a first round pick. I think people have just seen more and more players come in from day one but realistically not everyone will be able to. Good GMs and personnel people will look at the long term more than the short term

ChiefMojo · 12-27-2011, 02:39 PM

Just think the Tannehill pick would be a BAD pick for KC! If no Luck or RGIII, move onto another position of need. Sadly I value Cassel and Orton higher than Tannehill and I've seen a lot of Tannehill through the years being in BIG XII country. Guess I've seen to many of his bad games to scare the living crap out of me.

AntoinCD · 12-27-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefMojo

Just think the Tannehill pick would be a BAD pick for KC! If no Luck or RGIII, move onto another position of need. Sadly I value Cassel and Orton higher than Tannehill and I've seen a lot of Tannehill through the years being in BIG XII country. Guess I've seen to many of his bad games to scare the living crap out of me.

Sure that's where it gets tougher to evaluate value wise. If you don't think Tannenhill is the guy you don't do it in the first, although I would also then be of the opinion that you don't take him in the second either. Unless you are confident that he can be a franchise QB then I wouldn't spend more than a mid rounder on him.

Firstly you waste a valuable pick on him when you could look elsewhere, and secondly you kinda have to play it out with him to see what he has. Then you get into the sort of routine Cleveland has been in for years were they are stuck with mediocrity because they took a guy they weren't necessarily in love with.

If you evaluate a QB and think he is the guy for your franchise then IMO you can't reach high enough on him

LonghornsLegend · 12-27-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

Are you being ******* serious? No. Don't give him a shot. I don't care what they think he can be. We're going to be picking top 10 and we'll hopefully have a shot at a QB but you can't **** your franchise over for a god damn 5th rounder.

Jesus, I've seen you say some stupid things in the past but this might take the cake.

This. I like Stanzi but he shouldn't alter any QB plans. If you happen to end up with 2 good QB's awesome, there are worse things to happen. But if you have a QB come along you like, you don't pass because you took Stanzi in the 5th round prior. Stanzi could be attractive trade bait for someone, a valuable long term back-up who knows the system, or challenge the new rookie QB if he plays well enough.

Alot of options, but none of them involve passing up an elite QB.

A Perfect Score · 12-27-2011, 04:07 PM

After seeing what Kolb got, I'd be stashing mid level QB's left, right and center, giving them small amounts of playing time against weak opponents, hyping the hell out of them to the media and shipping them all off for second rounders and pro bowl CBs.

That's most definitely what the Chiefs should do with Stanzamerica. Then they should draft RGIII and have a real QB for once.

Caulibflower · 12-27-2011, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Perfect Score

After seeing what Kolb got, I'd be stashing mid level QB's left, right and center, giving them small amounts of playing time against weak opponents, hyping the hell out of them to the media and shipping them all off for second rounders and pro bowl CBs.

GM: Look! So-and-so has compiled an 89.8 QB rating in limited playing time! That's purdy good! And He's 2-1 in his starts! I think he's got some potential! I like a guy who's been in the league a couple years!

*trades for a guy who should be a backup and puts his franchise back two years*

onejayhawk · 12-28-2011, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PossibleCabbage

NTs are first round picks, in the case of special prospects, they can be high first round picks. It's among the most important positions on the defense.

Any "Special" player can go higher. Mayo is an ILB for example. Raji is a NT. Eric Berry is a SS. However, I see no special players in the draft at those positions.

The best NT is Poe, and I would have trouble grading him higher than Phil Taylor. Scott may disagree, because I know he thinks Poe is elite, but even he does not say top 10. However, the 2nd round has several good RT/NT possibilities.

J