The Kansas City Chiefs Select...

[Forenci]

Originally Posted by vidae

This is what I, and many others, have been arguing with you about.

Tell me who the Chiefs should take instead of a QB. Tell me the position or player.

OLB? Nope. DT? Nope. OT? Nope. None of these are needs. No surefire stud WR at the top of the draft. RB isn't needed. ILB and CB aren't worthy of the top pick, and if you're going to reach on one of those, it'd make more sense reaching for a QB because of positional value.

Tell me who the Chiefs should take.

You're saying you couldn't use another stud OT or DE? What if Reid switches to a 4-3? You will probably have to fill some positions if that occurs (which it may very well).

There's no sure fire QB either. Far from it in this draft. That's why the Chiefs should take the best player they think available in the draft. If they truly believe it's a QB, do it. If not, then take someone else. That's my only real point.

[LonghornsLegend]

Originally Posted by Forenci

I disagree, it's not so much the financial investment as it is the investment in a player. A QB drafted in the first round almost ALWAYS gets at least two years, typically three (and perhaps more). Sometimes missing on a QB that early kills your team for several years after it. That's why I believe you don't just take a QB for the sake of taking one.

Heck look at a team like the Jets. They picked Sanchez and saw just enough from him to make coaches, fans, etc. believe he was their franchise QB. Turns out he actually never got better and regressed and look how much it's set them back as a team for numerous years. Likely at least another 2-3. They will likely have no choice but to stick with Sanchez and even if they do get rid of him after next year they still have to draft a new QB and wait for him to develop.

If you pick a QB at the first pick, he will likely set you back at least 3-4 years (if not more) if you miss. That's my point when I've attempted to wage the discussion for the Chiefs picking someone else. Now I think Geno is pretty good but I understand an argument against him.

That's my whole point. Take a guy who think is worthy of the first overall pick, don't just take the best QB in this particular draft.

Yea but what people forget in these scenarios, is that it isn't drafting said QB that sets the franchise back, it's how long they tend to ignore the obvious signs and continually give him chances. For instance, you could make a great argument that the Sanchez extension set the franchise back further then drafting him did. Most GM's don't want to admit the fact that the QB is a bust, but that is their own doing.


I think Locker is a bust, and if I'm the GM of the Titans, I'd take a QB in the 1st round if I had him rated high enough. Let them battle it out in camp. If Locker wins, maybe the pressure makes him play better and you have a nice trade piece down the line that at least nets you another 1st back. If Locker continues to suck, throw in the new QB and see what you have. I think teams get themselves into trouble far more often by sticking with a QB for too long.


Sanchez should have never gotten extended, and it would have been much easier to move on before they did. I thought they should have taken Osweiler last year honestly, or at least someone. But constantly putting all their eggs into the Sanchez basket and talking him up like he was the franchise guy put themselves in a hole.

[vidae]

Originally Posted by Forenci

You're saying you couldn't use another stud OT or DE? What if Reid switches to a 4-3? You will probably have to fill some positions if that occurs (which it may very well).

There's no sure fire QB either. Far from it in this draft. That's why the Chiefs should take the best player they think available in the draft. If they truly believe it's a QB, do it. If not, then take someone else. That's my only real point.

Why would we need a stud OT? We have Branden Albert and Eric Winston. If Reid switches to the 4-3 we can talk, but right now there is no indication that he'll do that, so I'm not buying that either.

[SuperPacker]

If the Chiefs move to a 4-3 they have Poe and Dorsey at DT. It would hardly be the most pressing need. And there's no guarantee Star doesn't bust. It's as if people think QB is the only position that has players bust.

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

Yea but what people forget in these scenarios, is that it isn't drafting said QB that sets the franchise back, it's how long they tend to ignore the obvious signs and continually give him chances. For instance, you could make a great argument that the Sanchez extention set the franchise back further then drafting him did. Most GM's don't want to admit the fact that the QB is a bust, but that is their own doing.


I think Locker is a bust, and if I'm the GM of the Titans, I'd take a QB in the 1st round if I had him rated high enough. Let them battle it out in camp. If Locker wins, maybe the pressure makes him play better and you have a nice trade piece down the line that at least nets you another 1st back. If Locker continues to suck, throw in the new QB and see what you have. I think teams get themselves into trouble far more often by sticking with a QB for too long.


Sanchez should have never gotten extended, and it would have been much easier to move on before they did. I thought they should have taken Osweiler last year honestly, or at least someone. But constantly putting all their eggs into the Sanchez basket and talking him up like he was the franchise guy put themselves in a hole.

This.

[Forenci]

Well that's the problem. Most franchises aren't willing to give up on their QB they drafted so early. I think Locker is a bust too, but I sincerely doubt they will move on from him. If they did, then fine, no harm done - but chances are they won't.

That's why it's an issue. That's why it's almost always an issue. Almost every team is going to give that QB as many chances to succeed as he can. Granted the Jets are an extreme example because of that horrendous extension but it's still valid.

[Forenci]

Originally Posted by vidae

Why would we need a stud OT? We have Branden Albert and Eric Winston. If Reid switches to the 4-3 we can talk, but right now there is no indication that he'll do that, so I'm not buying that either.

I mean at this point it's difficult to say. What if they decide to franchise Bowe and let Albert walk? What if they do switch to the 4-3? What if Geno sucks it up at the Senior Bowl and Combine? What if Star explodes and dominates?

It's very difficult to predict at this point. To me there are just too many questions to cement a QB to the Chiefs at number one. And certainly not just for the sake of taking a QB to save face.

[SuperPacker]

Originally Posted by Forenci

Well that's the problem. Most franchises aren't willing to give up on their QB they drafted so early. I think Locker is a bust too, but I sincerely doubt they will move on from him. If they did, then fine, no harm done - but chances are they won't.

That's why it's an issue. That's why it's almost always an issue. Almost every team is going to give that QB as many chances to succeed as he can. Granted the Jets are an extreme example because of that horrendous extension but it's still valid.

So you're saying the Chiefs should go into the draft thinking "if the QB we pick busts, it'll set us back years, because we'll refuse to move on from him quickly enough".

[vidae]

Originally Posted by Forenci

I mean at this point it's difficult to say. What if they decide to franchise Bowe and let Albert walk? What if they do switch to the 4-3? What if Geno sucks it up at the Senior Bowl and Combine? What if Star explodes and dominates?

It's very difficult to predict at this point. To me there are just too many questions to cement a QB to the Chiefs at number one. And certainly not just for the sake of taking a QB to save face.

We drafted Donald Stephenson in the third round last year. I'd much rather keep Albert, but I could see him stepping in as a starter if no deal with Albert can be made.

[Forenci]

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

So you're saying the Chiefs should go into the draft thinking "if the QB we pick busts, it'll set us back years, because we'll refuse to move on from him quickly enough".

No. My entire point has been this: The Chiefs should draft the best player available in the draft. They should not just draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB. If they don't think any QB is great in this draft, don't take one. Don't just take one because they have failed to take one in the pass. Take one because you believe they will be a franchise signal caller.

If you take one just for the sake of taking a QB and it doesn't work out it can set your franchise back for years.

[farfromforgotten]

Originally Posted by Forenci

If you take one just for the sake of taking a QB and it doesn't work out it can set your franchise back for years.

This is a franchise that hasn't taken one in a long time. The last 6 years their records are as follows: 4-12, 2-14, 4-12, 10-6, 7-9, and 2-14. This is without taking a QB for the "sake of taking one". Going with whom they've perceived to be the best player available I assume.

So... what exactly would they be set back from? Would they be in danger of going from being a mediocre franchise to a horrible one?

[Splat]

Originally Posted by Forenci

If you take one just for the sake of taking a QB and it doesn't work out it can set your franchise back for years.

I don't think that's true anymore with the rookie cap. It's not like they are going to give the guy 70+ million and be forced to roll with him for years.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

Yea but what people forget in these scenarios, is that it isn't drafting said QB that sets the franchise back, it's how long they tend to ignore the obvious signs and continually give him chances. For instance, you could make a great argument that the Sanchez extension set the franchise back further then drafting him did. Most GM's don't want to admit the fact that the QB is a bust, but that is their own doing.


I think Locker is a bust, and if I'm the GM of the Titans, I'd take a QB in the 1st round if I had him rated high enough. Let them battle it out in camp. If Locker wins, maybe the pressure makes him play better and you have a nice trade piece down the line that at least nets you another 1st back. If Locker continues to suck, throw in the new QB and see what you have. I think teams get themselves into trouble far more often by sticking with a QB for too long.


Sanchez should have never gotten extended, and it would have been much easier to move on before they did. I thought they should have taken Osweiler last year honestly, or at least someone. But constantly putting all their eggs into the Sanchez basket and talking him up like he was the franchise guy put themselves in a hole.

My guess is Tennessee will give Locker a season with a healthy Kenny Britt, Jared Cook and a decent offensive line, not one that was put together with retreads. At that point he'll either get a shot in Oakland (last stop for many) or he'll be competing for an outfield spot with the Anaheim Angels.

[Scotty D]

Originally Posted by Splat

I don't think that's true anymore with the rookie cap. It's not like they are going to give the guy 70+ million and be forced to roll with him for years.

Maybe not in money but it would set back the franchise in time. That QB will be tied to the head coach. Lets not forget Andy Reid loves lineman like Gruden loves QBs.

[Witten4HOF]

Teddy Bridgewater would be the perfect fit for an Andy Reid Offense.

[nepg]

I'll say that I like Geno Smith a lot more with Andy Reid. I like every QB more with him.

[SuperPacker]

Not selecting a QB will set the Chiefs back just as much as selecting one would (assuming they bust, which everyone seems to be certain of). This franchise is never going to be successful without a QB, so i'm not sure why people think selecting a DT is going to suddenly push them forward. It's quite funny actually.

If they don't pick one now it could be years before they get another chance. IT WOULD SET THEM BACK YEARS!

[mightytitan9]

The truth is the Chiefs have been ignoring the QB position for years, isn't it time they at least TRY?

Andy Reid can probably turn a guy like Geno Smith into a star. I'll be the first to say Geno has been a huge disappointment ever since the K-State game, but he is still very accurate.

Andy Reid and KC, where he'll at least have decent WRs and RBs and O-Line, would be about the best scenario for Geno I can see.

The argument among many is "is it worth drafting a QB who is not a sure thing" and in this case I think it is. The chiefs are decent QB play away from competing, and really there is less than 10 QBs that I would really classify as "good" QBs.

But in my opinion, having an above average can set some teams apart. To me Flacco is an above average QB, but the Ravens wouldnt be in the playoffs without him.

A QB can go a long way in this league, I think you take them til you find one

The only other real option for KC is to bring in a retread and hope they can play. Maybe Flynn wants a chance and Reid can excel there

[Witten4HOF]

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

Not selecting a QB will set the Chiefs back just as much as selecting one would (assuming they bust, which everyone seems to be certain of). This franchise is never going to be successful without a QB, so i'm not sure why people think selecting a DT is going to suddenly push them forward. It's quite funny actually.

If they don't pick one now it could be years before they get another chance. IT WOULD SET THEM BACK YEARS!

My only gripe would be what if the Scouts put their board together and say they don't feel like there is a franchise QB in this years draft. What do you do pull the trigger anyway just for the sake that a QB is needed?

I understand there really isn't an elite sure fire #1 pick and KC has good talent. You either have to sell the pick cheap to get some sort of compensation or take then best player on your board regardless of need.

[MaxV]

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

Not selecting a QB will set the Chiefs back just as much as selecting one would (assuming they bust, which everyone seems to be certain of). This franchise is never going to be successful without a QB, so i'm not sure why people think selecting a DT is going to suddenly push them forward. It's quite funny actually.

If they don't pick one now it could be years before they get another chance. IT WOULD SET THEM BACK YEARS!

Wait a minute.

No one is suggesting that KC shouldn't draft a QB. Just not 1st overall.

Imo Geno Smith is not much better then guys who will be available in the 2nd round.

I would pick Tyler Wilson at #34 over Geno Smith at #1.

[Splat]

Originally Posted by mightytitan9

The only other real option for KC is to bring in a retread and hope they can play.

This is all they have ever done and I'm ******* sick of it. Even Len Dawson was drafted by the Steelers. They have NEVER drafted a QB developed him and had him be their guy.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by mightytitan9

The truth is the Chiefs have been ignoring the QB position for years, isn't it time they at least TRY?

Andy Reid can probably turn a guy like Geno Smith into a star. I'll be the first to say Geno has been a huge disappointment ever since the K-State game, but he is still very accurate.

Andy Reid and KC, where he'll at least have decent WRs and RBs and O-Line, would be about the best scenario for Geno I can see.

The argument among many is "is it worth drafting a QB who is not a sure thing" and in this case I think it is. The chiefs are decent QB play away from competing, and really there is less than 10 QBs that I would really classify as "good" QBs.

But in my opinion, having an above average can set some teams apart. To me Flacco is an above average QB, but the Ravens wouldnt be in the playoffs without him.

A QB can go a long way in this league, I think you take them til you find one

The only other real option for KC is to bring in a retread and hope they can play. Maybe Flynn wants a chance and Reid can excel there

Going with a Matt Flynn or a Shaun Hill type would give you the year to see if they were the answer and at the same time you could look for a guy to develope in rounds 2 or 3. If all that fails then next year you could look to pick a QB early. Not saying i'd do this but it is an alternative to a Geno Smith or a Tyler Wilson.

[vidae]

Tyler Wilson isn't going to be available at #34.

And I'll ask it again since I've asked it about 50 times and no one has answered me: if you're of the belief that the Chiefs should wait until the second to get the fourth or fifth best QB in this draft, WHO do they take first overall? OLB/OT/DT are no gos, there is no WR, there is no need for a RB.. tell me, honestly, who do they take?

[mightytitan9]

Personally, I think the best way to go would be trade back (if you can find a partner in this draft) get somewhere 2-10, draft Geno or your highest rated player and then take QB #34 or trade up into the late to grab one.

Murray, Barkley or Wilson would all seem like a good fit to me. But so does Geno, I guess it just depends who they like and how much they can get for the #1 if they decide to go that route

[mightytitan9]

Originally Posted by Splat

This is all they have ever done and I'm ******* sick of it. Even Len Dawson was drafted by the Steelers. They have NEVER drafted a QB developed him and had him be their guy.

I agree. If nothing else I think they should take Geno #1 to give fans some hope

[SickwithIt1010]

Originally Posted by MaxV

I would pick Tyler Wilson at #34 over Geno Smith at #1.

I approve this message.