Going on Record

[azchief21 5,278]

36-32 vs. Saints.

44-45 @ Indianapolis.

30-0 @ Houston.

 

It's like you sleep through Alex Smith's best performances.

 

And I'm not sure how you'd prove the "hardest possible way to win a Super Bowl" bit. A great many Super Bowl winning teams hold their opponents to well under their average offensive scoring on the season.

Forgot one

 

20-27 vs Patriots

[KCSLC2008 606]

Forgot one

 

20-27 vs Patriots

I'm glad you think that's one of his best performances. Just kidding. Damn you, Knile Davis and injuries and Bellicheat and clock and fumbles.

[azchief21 5,278]

I'm glad you think that's one of his best performances. Just kidding. Damn you, Knile Davis and injuries and Bellicheat and clock and fumbles.

Exactly

[Okiechief1 425]

I think the results of this poll would be much different if people were asking about drafting a quarterback soon and possibly doing it early. But as it stands, going with the quarterback that has been here for a while and has built some chemistry, has had deeper attempts this year than before, and had all the reps this off-season, and is winning, is probably the best way to go in our window.

 

Have the whole team play well and with who we have and that might get to Foles at some point. And then give the next guy a loaded team with continuity at coaching.

I will admit my answer had more to with the draft. I think Foles is young enough and would play just well enough that it would keep the cycle of not really going after that franchise guy in the draft going. Foles is just the same horse of a different color to me and end result would be the same.

 

Gannon is the only guy I can think of that played on 3 different teams that ever got to a SB. Odds are Foles won't do any better than Smith in the big picture.

 

Start Foles for the rest of the year and they probably see just enough to keep the cycle going and he will be just another guy in a long string of guys that was good but not quite good enough. Stick with Smith and i think their is a chance that they will look to the draft for the next guy after Smith in a year or two.

 

So my answer isn't so much about I think Smith is better than Foles or Foles is better than Smith. Its more About what I think happens long term from the result of the decision.

[azchief21 5,278]

I will admit my answer had more to with the draft. I think Foles is young enough and would play just well enough that it would keep the cycle of not really going after that franchise guy in the draft going. Foles is just the same horse of a different color to me and end result would be the same.

 

Gannon is the only guy I can think of that played on 3 different teams that ever got to a SB. Odds are Foles won't do any better than Smith in the big picture.

 

Start Foles for the rest of the year and they probably see just enough to keep the cycle going and he will be just another guy in a long string of guys that was good but not quite good enough. Stick with Smith and i think their is a chance that they will look to the draft for the next guy after Smith in a year or two.

 

So my answer isn't so much about I think Smith is better than Foles or Foles is better than Smith. Its more About what I think happens long term from the result of the decision.

That's it Okie, The Cycle. 

[jetlord 10,209]

There's been probably five or fewer QBs in the draft that were assured of being above average starters in the past 15 years.  What makes anyone think the Chiefs could trade up far enough to get one?  Sure, the grass always looks greener, hope springs eternal, and that guy who threw for 600 at Podunk U could be the next Unitas.

[azchief21 5,278]

There's been probably five or fewer QBs in the draft that were assured of being above average starters in the past 15 years.  What makes anyone think the Chiefs could trade up far enough to get one?  Sure, the grass always looks greener, hope springs eternal, and that guy who threw for 600 at Podunk U could be the next Unitas.

Jet, we haven't won a game with a QB we drafted since '83. We've had no chance at franchise QB since then? There is no effort. Retread coaches bring in retread QBs. Don't want to lose while grooming QB. There have been QBs that have had amazing careers and have been retired for 10 years since we last tried. Take a chance, move up, lose for a few years, build around him. This franchise will always be happy with a 10-6 record and an occasional playoff appearance as long as the fans are. The formula, the cycle has not worked and I think we have enough data to prove that out. It's not an overnight deal. Just in the amount of time we've been on this board we should have been able to get a solid QB in the draft. If you don't try, it's not going to happen. Take a risk, maybe get a Super Bowl. Look at the QBs in the Super Bowls over the last 10,15,20 years.

[KCSLC2008 606]

Jet, we haven't won a game with a QB we drafted since '83. We've had no chance at franchise QB since then? There is no effort. Retread coaches bring in retread QBs. Don't want to lose while grooming QB. There have been QBs that have had amazing careers and have been retired for 10 years since we last tried. Take a chance, move up, lose for a few years, build around him. This franchise will always be happy with a 10-6 record and an occasional playoff appearance as long as the fans are. The formula, the cycle has not worked and I think we have enough data to prove that out. It's not an overnight deal. Just in the amount of time we've been on this board we should have been able to get a solid QB in the draft. If you don't try, it's not going to happen. Take a risk, maybe get a Super Bowl. Look at the QBs in the Super Bowls over the last 10,15,20 years.

My wish would be for us to win the Super Bowl this year and draft some quarterback in the first round, possibly moving up picks and then have Smith mentor that quarterback and assume that the depth we have built, the consistency we have in coaching staff, etc. helps make up for the lower draft pick, find the diamond in the rough and give him a good team.

 

I would like the next great quarterback, but with Smith or Foles, we're not going to be picking that high. I wouldn't be pining for a lost year when we are five and two heading into a game against the Jaguars. A lost year at this point gives us nothing this year or future. Our chance have a lost year ended after the bye week. I would rather win and go as far as we can with whoever Reid chooses. Then talk about drafting. I will always believe the trouble is with drafting and not with trying to win. I understand the benefits of tanking, but that's just not me.

[jetlord 10,209]

Jet, we haven't won a game with a QB we drafted since '83. We've had no chance at franchise QB since then? There is no effort. Retread coaches bring in retread QBs. Don't want to lose while grooming QB. There have been QBs that have had amazing careers and have been retired for 10 years since we last tried. Take a chance, move up, lose for a few years, build around him. This franchise will always be happy with a 10-6 record and an occasional playoff appearance as long as the fans are. The formula, the cycle has not worked and I think we have enough data to prove that out. It's not an overnight deal. Just in the amount of time we've been on this board we should have been able to get a solid QB in the draft. If you don't try, it's not going to happen. Take a risk, maybe get a Super Bowl. Look at the QBs in the Super Bowls over the last 10,15,20 years.

If drafting a QB meant the Chiefs would win a SB, then you might have a point.  That's quite an assumption.  Dan Morino and Jim Kelly were great HOF first round picks who never won a SB.  Dozens of other first round picks did much less.  If the Chiefs could stay healthy, they have a chance to get there this year or next.  Trading up to even the #1 overall pick often results in a bust.  As posted earlier, only a few such as Manning, Elway, or maybe Luck are worth the risk of trading away the team's success for three years to get them.  I don't want to see that many years of losing football to take that long shot.

[azchief21 5,278]

If drafting a QB meant the Chiefs would win a SB, then you might have a point.  That's quite an assumption.  Dan Morino and Jim Kelly were great HOF first round picks who never won a SB.  Dozens of other first round picks did much less.  If the Chiefs could stay healthy, they have a chance to get there this year or next.  Trading up to even the #1 overall pick often results in a bust.  As posted earlier, only a few such as Manning, Elway, or maybe Luck are worth the risk of trading away the team's success for three years to get them.  I don't want to see that many years of losing football to take that long shot.

Well we know know not drafting a QB hasn't worked. Marino and Kelly were in 5 SBs combined. I'd take that. Once you're there anything can happen.

[PhataLerror 370]

Some of the 44 points that we scored was helped by the defense and some of the offense hurt the defense, but needing to hold a team to 43 points with all that, still isn't what is considered perfect defense. I don't mind people making a few generalities, but talking about needing perfect is stupid.

It's not even that the Chiefs gave up 45 points to the Colts that disturbed me. It's that the defense gave up something like 2 points for every minute the Colts possessed the ball in that game. It was almost the opposite of perfect.

[PhataLerror 370]

I'm glad you think that's one of his best performances. Just kidding.  *** you, Knile Davis and injuries and Bellicheat and clock and fumbles.

That was a lot of "and".

[PhataLerror 370]

Jet, we haven't won a game with a QB we drafted since '83.

I didn't know wins were worth more if you got them with a quarterback you drafted.

[azchief21 5,278]

I didn't know wins were worth more if you got them with a quarterback you drafted.

Let me rephrase in case my point was missed. We haven't won a Super Bowl with a QB that another team didn't want. But we have sure as hell tried.

[Okiechief1 425]

My wish would be for us to win the Super Bowl this year and draft some quarterback in the first round, possibly moving up picks and then have Smith mentor that quarterback and assume that the depth we have built, the consistency we have in coaching staff, etc. helps make up for the lower draft pick, find the diamond in the rough and give him a good team.

 

I would like the next great quarterback, but with Smith or Foles, we're not going to be picking that high. I wouldn't be pining for a lost year when we are five and two heading into a game against the Jaguars. A lost year at this point gives us nothing this year or future. Our chance have a lost year ended after the bye week. I would rather win and go as far as we can with whoever Reid chooses. Then talk about drafting. I will always believe the trouble is with drafting and not with trying to win. I understand the benefits of tanking, but that's just not me.

I don't think you have to have a top 5 or 10 pick to get a good QB. We are in the position where we can let a late first or second round guy sit for a couple years and learn without throwing him to the wolves from the beginning. Most guys drafted in the top 10 are expected to come in and be the guy from day one when the team around him can't help that much so they bust. We can take someone a little less polished and wait for him to mature and learn and since he should have a good team around him the chances of success are pretty good. Basically what GB did with Rogers except I think Smith will be a better mentor.

[azchief21 5,278]

Here's a list of QBs who were high draft picks that went to the Super Bowl.

 

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/superbowl_quarterbacks/

[PhataLerror 370]

Let me rephrase in case my point was missed. We haven't won a Super Bowl with a QB that another team didn't want. But we have sure as hell tried.

Been down this argument before. About half of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks in recent years were not drafted by the team they played for. It's a non-stat used to rouse the rabble. There's no substance to the claim.

[PhataLerror 370]

Here's a list of QBs who were high draft picks that went to the Super Bowl.

 

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/superbowl_quarterbacks/

There's a little bit of misinformation in that chart. Steve Young was the first pick of the 1984 Supplemental Draft of USFL and CFL players, which was distinct from what we would normally call The Draft. To provide a point of reference for the value of these picks, which were highly speculative because the players drafted actually had contracts with USFL or CFL teams, the Cleveland Browns traded their ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth round selections in the NFL Draft (the real draft) to the Chicago Bears' for their first, second, and third round picks in the Supplemental Draft. Steve Young was far from a First Overall talent, but there he is listed as 1st overall in that chart. Shenanigans. I wonder how many more errant conclusions have been based off of this chart.

[azchief21 5,278]

Been down this argument before. About half of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks in recent years were not drafted by the team they played for. It's a non-stat used to rouse the rabble. There's no substance to the claim.

Brady (6), Rodgers , Manning, Wilson (2), Kaepernick,  Roetlhisberger(2), Flacco (2), Newton.  We can't count Eli, even though he never spent a minute in SD and I believe they had a draft day agreement. That's 16 SB games that were started by home grown QBs. That's fairly recent. 

[PhataLerror 370]

Brady (6), Rodgers , Manning, Wilson (2), Kaepernick,  Roetlhisberger(2), Flacco (2), Newton.  We can't count Eli, even though he never spent a minute in SD and I believe they had a draft day agreement. That's 16 SB games that were started by home grown QBs. That's fairly recent. 

I thought the goal was to win a Super Bowl, not just play in one.

 

And since when was Russell Wilson (75th overall) considered an "early pick"?

 

Out of the last seventeen Super Bowls, twelve were won by teams fielding a quarterback that was not drafted by that team within the first two rounds. The exceptions are Ben Roethlisberger (2), Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Joe Flacco.

 

The trick is finding a quarterback capable of leading a team to victories on the basis of quality play rather than according to arbitrary benchmark comparisons that have no correlation to winning. And even then, that quarterback does you no good if you can't surround him with talent. The Chiefs have that quarterback, and when healthy, have the surrounding talent.

[jetlord 10,209]

Any coach AND THE FANS want to win now.  To field a poor team in the hopes of drafting a top QB would drive both away.  If a QB falls to wherever the Chiefs are drafting, then go for him.  To give away the draft or key players to move up just in hopes of getting lucky is foolish IMHO.  Add in the fact that bringing in a rookie QB on a poor team often means the QB never succeeds.  I'll take my chances with Smith, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft.

[Calichief 3,016]

Any coach AND THE FANS want to win now. To field a poor team in the hopes of drafting a top QB would drive both away. If a QB falls to wherever the Chiefs are drafting, then go for him. To give away the draft or key players to move up just in hopes of getting lucky is foolish IMHO. Add in the fact that bringing in a rookie QB on a poor team often means the QB never succeeds. I'll take my chances with Smith, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft.

Losing on purpose to get a better draft pick is terrible.

[azchief21 5,278]

Any coach AND THE FANS want to win now.  To field a poor team in the hopes of drafting a top QB would drive both away.  If a QB falls to wherever the Chiefs are drafting, then go for him.  To give away the draft or key players to move up just in hopes of getting lucky is foolish IMHO.  Add in the fact that bringing in a rookie QB on a poor team often means the QB never succeeds.  I'll take my chances with Smith, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft.

Don't think people are understanding my point. Guess I'm not the best splainer.  I'll take my chances with Cassell, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft. I'll take my chances with Grbac, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft. I'll take my chances with Bono, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft. I'll take my chances with Thigpen, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft. I'll take my chances with Kreig, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft. I'll take my chances with Deberg, a solid line, top defense, and good coaching over the Browns team and the first QB in the draft. Jet, have we had this conversation before?

[azchief21 5,278]

Losing on purpose to get a better draft pick is terrible.

Cali I know I've never said that because it is a terrible idea. Played sports all my life. Always want to win. New England had Drew Bledsoe went to the Super Bowl and drafted Brady, They've had 2 QBs for like 25 years and 7 Super Bowl appearances. GB had Favre won a SB and used a first on Rodgers. 2 Super Bowl wins and only 2 QBs in 20 years. Both teams have been competitive for decades. I'm not talking about an overnight deal but make it a priority. We never make an effort at a top prospect in 40 years because he might be a bust? That's what I call losing. At some point somebody has to grow a pair and trust their evaluative skills. Croyle, Bray, Murray, etc. That's been our QB evaluations recently during the draft. We're going to be saying Sam Bradford or Brian Hoyer or "fill in the blank" will be fine if we can surround them with talent. Sure is easy that way and nobody gets blood on their hands. So we don't have the ownership to get a 10,12, 15 year QB? Everybody talks about continuity and we change the most important position every 3,4 years. The frustrating part is we have never even tried. 

[azchief21 5,278]

I'm done with the KC QB conversation! Go Chiefs!!