... the word in the Chiefs building is that they would like to trade up for QB Patrick Mahomes or RB Christian McCaffrey in the first round. If this falls through, he said they like ILB Zach Cunningham a lot as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And Alex Smith's $17 million figure doesn't qualify?
He swears the Chiefs will never draft a QB in the 1st round ever again. It has to happen at some point, and it really feels like this is the year. If not, then next year for sure. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Which again, gets to my point - there isn't a single larger advantage in the NFL right now than a cost-controlled quarterback.
$17 million is a pittance for any quarterback no longer on a rookie deal. That's, what, bottom 3rd for starting QBs on their second contract or later?
They make 3-5 times what similarly situated RBs make. That's why you don't take RBs in the first round.
You're preaching to this choir in particular here.
But two decades of personnel moves that KC has made pertaining to the quarterback position leads me to confidently believe that the franchise does not see positional value that way given the bigger probability in drafting and building around a rookie QB turning out to be a bust such that the reward of finding a Wilson or Rodgers* does not outweigh the risk of several sub-.500 seasons. Thus trying to build around a "cheaper" veteran backup will always be the preferred option.
Given the dearth of backups at this time, I'd be surprised if Smith doesn't get an extension that carries him on the team through his 34th birthday in order to wait and see what trades or FA signings might be available ~2020.
* In terms of SB appearances / wins ... bringing Brady in this discussion is just ludicrous considering what he's done in his career and the circumstances of how he developed into a starter* [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
You're preaching to this choir in particular here.
But two decades of personnel moves that KC has made pertaining to the quarterback position leads me to confidently believe that the franchise does not see positional value that way given the bigger probability in drafting and building around a rookie QB turning out to be a bust such that the reward of finding a Wilson or Rodgers* does not outweigh the risk of several sub-.500 seasons. Thus trying to build around a "cheaper" veteran backup will always be the preferred option.
Given the dearth of backups at this time, I'd be surprised if Smith doesn't get an extension that carries him on the team through his 34th birthday in order to wait and see what trades or FA signings might be available ~2020.
* In terms of SB appearances / wins ... bringing Brady in this discussion is just ludicrous considering what he's done in his career and the circumstances of how he developed into a starter*
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that they're looking harder at QB's then ever before this offseason? It's obvious they get it, but you're just in denial because of your obsession with the past. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that they're looking harder at QB's then ever before this offseason? It's obvious they get it, but you're just in denial because of your obsession with the past.
1) Who they investigate has maybe a 60% correlation with whether or not they wind up selecting said players and it's probably a safer assumption (given the history of the franchise) that they're doing due diligence to get a better insight into the flaws of guys they might potentially be coaching against as well as to make sure there isn't an Aaron Rodgers-esque Day 1 sleeper out there.
2) The guys worth drafting won't be within reach of 27 and will require draft capital to move up, which I don't believe the FO will deal into the top third of the draft to lock up a QB (and even if they do, it'll be to trade for a player that hedges against a Ford or Maclin departure / cut) of their choosing and will instead wait and see who's available on Day 2 who will probably project to be a capable backup more so than a developmental QBotF just by virtue of how few QBs fit the mould of a QBotF and how many other teams need to find a QB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Given the dearth of backups at this time, I'd be surprised if Smith doesn't get an extension that carries him on the team through his 34th birthday in order to wait and see what trades or FA signings might be available ~2020.
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
You're preaching to this choir in particular here.
But two decades of personnel moves that KC has made pertaining to the quarterback position leads me to confidently believe that the franchise does not see positional value that way given the bigger probability in drafting and building around a rookie QB turning out to be a bust such that the reward of finding a Wilson or Rodgers* does not outweigh the risk of several sub-.500 seasons. Thus trying to build around a "cheaper" veteran backup will always be the preferred option.
Given the dearth of backups at this time, I'd be surprised if Smith doesn't get an extension that carries him on the team through his 34th birthday in order to wait and see what trades or FA signings might be available ~2020.
* In terms of SB appearances / wins ... bringing Brady in this discussion is just ludicrous considering what he's done in his career and the circumstances of how he developed into a starter*
They tried to trade up for a 1st rd QB last year and have looked at every early QB prospect very thoroughly.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I'm pretty sure the Colts wouldn't have given a wet shit about Marvin Harrison if they had Alex Smith under center.
And the Chiefs aren't going to be sitting at #1 overall and looking at the next Manning in 2018.
In other words, your analogy here is ****ing retarded.
I'd take a minute defending the thought, but why waste the breath when I rarely post anymore anyway. I'll just say... You's a dick, Seymore. Harrison was three years before Manning. [Reply]
