GO CHIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bobbyhawks]

Would you rather be the Chiefs or the Colts/Redskins right now?

If we're not going to the playoffs and winning playoff games, I couldn't give two shits if we go 5-11 or 6-10 or 0-16, if it meant we would finally do something to make this franchise better.

Yeah, a franchise QB matters and it's high fucking time the Chiefs organization drafts one. These guys that are coming into the league are competing NOW. The 2 or 3 year development period doesn't exist any longer. Cam Newton, RG3, Luck are all competing now. And even it did take a couple years, at least there would be some hope and optimism for the future.

I'd hold your horses (no pun intended) before you go calling Luck a home run. I wouldn't have a ticker tape parade for a 3 point win at home vs. the Vikings. Heck, even RG3 needs to prove more beyond a 2 game fantastic start. The Redskins move for RG3 will manifest itself in the next few years when they have no first round pick in 2013 and 2014. They will have to prove through free agency that they can back up RG3's talent with supporting talent on defense and at WR. It may have been a risk well worth it, but it was certainly a huge risk.

I agree that a first rounder is worth the look, but I think people are spoiled by a few guys who have worked out well. If you have to give up draft picks to reach for a guy, you can do more harm than good. Also, the timing is pretty important. There are 10 teams with new 1st or 2nd year QBs that they won't be giving up on anytime soon for another top pick. Then you have Brady, Brees, Manning, Rothles, Rodgers, Manning, Sanchez/Tebow, Alex Smith, Schaub, Rivers, Romo, Vick, Cutler, Stafford, Ryan, Freeman... so that comes to 26 teams who are pretty secure. That leaves around 6 teams who would be in the hunt for a QB in the draft, considering some will look through free agency and some established QBs will need future backups. Some will be behind the Chiefs in draft position. I think the Chiefs are in a good position now to draft a QB round 1, but I'd think twice about betting our future picks on an overhyped USC QB.

[KC-wildcat]

You're right. I don't see why people are taking it out on the QB, though.

Granted, there are losers all over this roster. But, oftentimes, the QB is the most important position. And, by oftentimes, I mean always. As such, they are afforded more praise and more criticism then they often deserve.

But, hey, I'm a fair guy. Let's just look at our bright, budding, 30 year old Luke Hochevar of a franchise QB's numbers through 2 games.

#24 QB rating. 3TDs, 3INTs, 58% completion rating, 8 sacks, 2 fumbles. Pretty shitty, right?

Now, I say to myself, these aren't very good numbers, but maybe it's just a slow start. So, let's look at 2011 season numbers:

#25 QB rating. 11TDs, 10 INTs, 59% completion rating, 22 sacks, ? fumbles. Uh oh.

Again, very horrible numbers for a "FRANCHISE QB."

So, I'm asking myself, "hey KC-Wildcat, why do you think the Chiefs are content with a mediocre QB when they could draft a better one, especially when it's the most important fucking position on the football field?" I mean, isn't this the point of the draft? to upgrade positions of weakness? Youngsters with better '11 QB ratings than Matt: Sanchez, Dalton, Newton, Moore, Stafford. Other youngsters I'd rather have: Bradford, RGIII, Ponder, Wilson, Luck.

How bout free agency??? '11 journeymen and alleged suck-asses Hasselbeck, Kolb, and Travaris Jackson all had better numbers than our budding franchise QB.

So, long story short, I ask you how is it even remotely possible that you're NOT taking it out on this QB?

[KC-wildcat]

I agree that a first rounder is worth the look, but I think people are spoiled by a few guys who have worked out well.

2011 QB Ratings: 11 of top 15 were chosen in the 1st Round. Add in an injured Manning and 12 of 16 were 1st rounders.

These numbers tell me that if I want a top QB in this league, my best bet is finding him in the 1st round. Or, stated differently, the best QBs typically won't be available after the 1st round.

[bobbyhawks]

So, long story short, I ask you how is it even remotely possible that you're NOT taking it out on this QB?

Drew Brees, Michael Vick, and Jay Cutler are all off to worse starts. It is two games into the season, and suddenly everyone knows what will happen over 16 games. Part of a QB completing passes is having receivers who are open, down and distances where you can either pass or run, and time in the pocket to get off a throw. I don't think Cassel has played particularly well. I'm not justifying that, but I don't think many QBs would be having a great time considering our crumbling pocket, predictable play-callling, and lackluster efforts from receivers.

2011 QB Ratings: 11 of top 15 were chosen in the 1st Round. Add in an injured Manning and 12 of 16 were 1st rounders.

These numbers tell me that if I want a top QB in this league, my best bet is finding him in the 1st round. Or, stated differently, the best QBs typically won't be available after the 1st round.

I don't disagree with your last statement at all. You are WAY more likely to get a lasting QB in the 1st round. Let's look at some more numbers, though, and consider that 1st round picks get a lot more playing time before they are given up on. Of 32 starting QBs in the league, 8 of them are not first rounders, so one would expect, all other things being equal post-draft, that 4 of them would be in the top half of the league. In fact, 5 of them are in the top half of the league. And before you start to say that this proves 1st rounders are always worth the investment, it pays to look at what would have realistically happened in the past.

I'm not saying that we should skip the first round to draft a QB in a later round. That clearly is a bigger gamble. What I am saying is that you can easily pick a lame QB in the 1st round. If first rounders are always better, then Brady Quinn should be starting, and I can't help you if you think he is better than Cassel. All of these new young guys can't be better than average, so I think it is important to weigh your needs and the players available. Teams often get in trouble drafting for need rather than the best player, and QBs always skew higher than they are worth on average. Looking back to 2010, we would have drafted Tim Tebow, who fell quite a bit from our lofty draft position. Only two QBs were taken in the first round, and Tebow was a total bust as far as long term QB goes. Now the Broncos have an old expensive guy as a temporary stop gap. In 2009, we would have taken Mark Sanchez, who is essentially a younger version of Matt Cassel. Josh Freeman was the next best QB, so the pickings were slim that year, too. The year before that, we would have drafted Joe Flacco? We could have drafted Kolb instead of Bowe the year before that, and Kelly Clemons the year before that... Of course, we could have been lucky and drafted Aaron Rodgers in 2005, but not every year is that deep, and obviously nobody predicted that Rodgers would be what he is. Sanchez, Freeman, Flacco, Kolb... All decent QBs, but I doubt any of those guys are still the QB for their current team in 3-5 years. This has been a great few years for QBs, but I still think it can be foolish to draft one just to draft one. I listed QBs who where the next QB pick in the draft after the Chiefs, but Vince Young, Matt Leinert, Brady Quinn, and JaMarcus Russell were all picked before the Chiefs. That pick hurt all of those franchises in the long run, and I think it is good reason for the Chiefs to be careful.

[KCMax]

The good thing is I can't really think of another position they need to burn a first round pick on that is a glaring weakness except defensive line, and I can't imagine they'd go to that well again via the draft. First rounders at ANY position can fail, as we've seen. Might as well go for the higher upside in a franchise QB.

[KC-wildcat]

Bobby, it's pretty simple, really.

Is Cassel one of the top 20 QBs in the League?

[bobbyhawks]

Bobby, it's pretty simple, really.

Is Cassel one of the top 20 QBs in the League?

I don't know why that makes a difference. Picking a QB in the first round does not guarantee they will be a top 20 QB ever. Through two games, he has not performed well, but the entire team on both side of the ball, including our coaching staff, has not performed well. I believe that, given the same exact team as every other QB, he is one of the top 20 QBs in the league right now. This obviously can change as the season moves along.

I have never said that the smart way to a QB is through free agency or lower round draft picks. I have just said that first rounders are pretty big risks. They are probably riskier picks than any other position if you look at the number of guys still starting in the league 5 years later, let alone for the team that drafted them. Any consideration of a first round QB pick should take that into consideration. Are we reaching? How much will a trade up set us back if this backfires? Could a free agent like Manning or Brees or Vick or Cutler or Palmer lead us until we are more comfortable with the pick at #1? If we have an opportunity, and the guy we want is there, I don't think we should hesitate, but this lust after a #1 pick for the sake of #1 picks is over-the-top to me.

[KC-wildcat]

Bobby, it's pretty simple, really.

Is Cassel one of the top 20 QBs in the League?

I don't know why that makes a difference. Picking a QB in the first round does not guarantee they will be a top 20 QB ever.

It makes a difference because he's a weak position player. We use the draft to address weak positions. The weaker the position, the higher the priority. The higher the priority, the higher the pick.

Hence, using some primitive logic here, maybe we should use a high pick on QB.

[KCMax]

I don't know why that makes a difference. Picking a QB in the first round does not guarantee they will be a top 20 QB ever. Through two games, he has not performed well, but the entire team on both side of the ball, including our coaching staff, has not performed well. I believe that, given the same exact team as every other QB, he is one of the top 20 QBs in the league right now. This obviously can change as the season moves along.
.

Picking anyone in the first round guarantees nothing. There are first round busts at all positions. I don't know why we are concentrating so much on the QB busts. Of course first round QBs bust. But they also have tremendous upside, much more than a good first round pick offensive lineman. Now I'm pretty wary of trading tons of picks to move up, but I think we should strongly consider drafting a QB in the first round next year.

[bobbyhawks]

It makes a difference because he's a weak position player. We use the draft to address weak positions. The weaker the position, the higher the priority. The higher the priority, the higher the pick.

Hence, using some primitive logic here, maybe we should use a high pick on QB.

I agree that we should consider it, but I still think that QB is the riskiest and most overvalued position in the first round. Just because it could be considered our #1 need (though I would say LB is) does not mean we should pick whomever is on the top of the board at that position in our slot. If the Chiefs are the #1 overall pick, and the greatest running back of all of college history is available, they still need to consider that RB pick vs. who is available at QB.

Picking anyone in the first round guarantees nothing. There are first round busts at all positions. I don't know why we are concentrating so much on the QB busts.

QBs are traditionally the riskiest pick in the first round. Reaching to pick a guy who is not worth the high pick is a bad idea, even when you need a QB. You are sometimes better off waiting a year and hoping that the field has someone that has better value for your position in the draft. For instance, one year you can pick up Aaron Rodgers at 24. The next, you can pick up Vince Young and Matt Leinert in the top 10. There is still a long way to go before we have a clue who is available, where we will pick, and if the hype machine of ESPN is blowing smoke or not about certain guys.
http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress. ... irst-round
Overall, and according to the article above, the career value from picking a QB is so wildly inconsistant, I think it is a mistake to pick a guy unless you think he belongs in that slot and there aren't other undervalued players still available.

[KC-wildcat]

I agree that we should consider it, but I still think that QB is the riskiest and most overvalued position in the first round.

QB is risky. Just like any position. See Ryan Sims. Or Tyson Jackson. Or Glen Dorsey.

Regarding value, I literally have no clue what you're talking about. Aside from maybe the Ravens, every team to win a Superbowl in the last generation has had a quality franchise QB. To get a quality Franchise QB, you're best bet is the 1st round. As we're without a quality franchise QB, we should start looking around in the 1st round. If he's a bust, we're in the same boat as we would be if Dantari Poe busts.

You are sometimes better off waiting a year and hoping that the field has someone that has better value for your position in the draft.

Or, say, 30 years?

[bobbyhawks]

QB is risky. Just like any position. See Ryan Sims. Or Tyson Jackson. Or Glen Dorsey.

Actually, it isn't. Read the article I linked to. The Chiefs' poor decision making does not prove those are equivalently risky picks. It proves the Chiefs are bad at making decisions. The overall stats for all decisions made by all teams indicate that QB is probably a riskier pick than any other position. If one is trying to use those previous draft picks to indicate anything, it would be that the Chiefs are even more likely to screw up an already volatile QB pick than most other teams.

Most of our POTUS's were/are Ivy League grads. This doesn't mean that a political party is fine if they pick just any Ivy League grad. They still have to pick the right one, or they end up with Michael Dukakis.

Aside from maybe the Ravens, every team to win a Superbowl in the last generation has had a quality franchise QB.

If we equate a "generation" to be 20 years, from 1992 to 2012, 10 of 21 Superbowl champion QBs were either not drafted in the first round or were playing for a different team than the one that originally drafted/signed them. This could be construed to indicate that teams were just as likely to either luck into a late gem or trade/sign a "franchise" QB as they were to draft their own Superbowl champ in the first round. The 11 SB victories by a first round draft pick were distributed amongst 6 players, while the 10 remaining were distributed amongst 8 players. This weeds out the fact that multiple time winners are counting as multiple examples of draft success in the 10/21 stats. So really, 8/14 or 57% of the Superbowl champions by individual were not first round draft picks. You were more likely in the last 20 years to get a Superbowl winning QB through a later round draft, as an undrafted free agent, or through free agency/trade than you were to draft a QB in the first round.

Being a first round draft pick does not make you a "franchise" QB. Being a franchise QB makes you a franchise QB. After the pick is made, it is meaningless to the success of the player, but it is also undeniable that more first round picks are not "franchise"-type QBs than are, depending on how generous you are with "franchise." To your point, more "franchise" QBs are picked up in the first round than in any other obvious place... but so are HOFers, Pro Bowlers, etc. in all positions. If the options are bad, why pass up a better opportunity for career value to the Chiefs so you can say you drafted a QB in the first round? The fact that you are a QB does not in and of itself make you a worthy pick.

[AllThingsKC]

With a win next week, the CHIEFS will be in first place!

DO ANY OF YOU CARE??????

[mean]

That defensive performance (excluding the 3rd quarter) is what I expected of the Chiefs this year. Their offense really hasn't been that bad, even if many points/yards have come in more or less garbage time. They're #5 in the NFL in total yards, which I'll take. I'll stand by my previous comments that the Chiefs aren't as bad as they have appeared through the preseason and the first couple games. In fact, I think they are a lot better than that. Super Bowl? Hahahahaha! Playoffs... well, maybe. I'm not ruling anything out yet. I think a division win is still highly possible with the talent they have, as long as the talent plays to its potential.

[KCMax]

Feel pretty good about this team going forward so long as Jamaal Charles gains 200 yards per game.

[KC-wildcat]

The best thing going for the Chiefs right now is that their AFC West foes appear to be as inept as them. It is highly possible that 8-8 or 9-7 will win this Division.

I'm happy we won. Don't get me wrong. If we win Sunday, we'll be in 1st place. However, I'm not about to use the Saints performance as validation that the Chiefs aren't as bad as they have appeared through the preseason and the first couple games.

The Saints are a BAD team. They've served as the sole win for all 3 of their opponents, Washington, Carolina, KC.

I'm encouraged by the Defensive Line and Charles. However, we still have one of the worst QBs in the league and our offensive production will always be hamstrung by this. It is not physically possible for Charles to have 30+ touches per game. He won't last.

[AllThingsKC]

I'm not getting my hopes up, either. The Chiefs have lost to 2 really good teams, and barely beat a bad team. I'm glad that they won. I'm REALLY glad that they didn't quit when they were down 24-6 with 5:00 left in the 3rd.

However, of their 27 points, they only scored one touchdown. They scored 6 FGs (a Chiefs record). And, I think I heard that the 18-point comeback was the biggest in Chiefs history. That's awesome, but unless we expect the Chiefs to break records every game, I still don't see them going far. It's a even bigger kick-in-the-teeth that 8 or 9 wins would most likely win the AFC West.

[AllThingsKC]

[mean]

I haven't been much of a Matt Cassel apologist, but holy shit...

[KC-wildcat]

So yeah, bobbyhawks, any thoughts on Cassel's performance? Any thoughts on drafting Geno Smith after this 3-13 season wraps up?