Going on Record

[Okiechief1 425]

Don't think people are understanding my point.

If its any consolation I get it. Next couple of years Chiefs are probably in the market for another QB so why not try something different and actually draft and devolp one instead of going after another one that somebody else didn't want. Nobody is advocating tanking. Maybe trade up a few spots if need be.

 

Didn't think it was that complicated.

 

Break the cycle....

[jetlord 10,209]

Maybe the Chiefs were going azchief's way until the Donks swooped in that grabbed Lynch.  Sometimes things just don't break for the team when drafting.  When they had the first pick, there was no obvious QB pick worth it.  Aside from that year, there haven't been a lot of QBs that most of us would have selected except in hindsight.  I wanted the Chiefs to draft Tannenhill a few years ago.  Maybe there were a few more cases that don't come to mind, but in general, the Chiefs haven't passed over obvious choices at the QB position.  NE got lucky with Brady.  GB had Rogers drop to them unexpectedly.  It just hasn't happened for the Chiefs even if they wanted to follow azchief's philosophy.

[azchief21 5,278]

Maybe the Chiefs were going azchief's way until the Donks swooped in that grabbed Lynch.  Sometimes things just don't break for the team when drafting.  When they had the first pick, there was no obvious QB pick worth it.  Aside from that year, there haven't been a lot of QBs that most of us would have selected except in hindsight.  I wanted the Chiefs to draft Tannenhill a few years ago.  Maybe there were a few more cases that don't come to mind, but in general, the Chiefs haven't passed over obvious choices at the QB position.  NE got lucky with Brady.  GB had Rogers drop to them unexpectedly.  It just hasn't happened for the Chiefs even if they wanted to follow azchief's philosophy.

On the advice from the voices in my head, I choose to invoke my 5th amendment privileges. Go Chiefs!! 

[Calichief 3,016]

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.

No no. I wasn't saying you did. In the NBA etc you see it. In football not so happening

[Calichief 3,016]

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.

I've had one of the biggest voices in here for drafting a qb non stop until we get one.

[PhataLerror 370]

If its any consolation I get it. Next couple of years Chiefs are probably in the market for another QB so why not try something different and actually draft and devolp one instead of going after another one that somebody else didn't want.

The Chiefs have been doing that. Aaron Murray didn't do anything to warrant keeping him. Kevin Hogan didn't do anything to warrant keeping him. The one non-QB1 quarterback worth keeping went undrafted in his class. I'm going to assume things happened that way because the Chiefs thought that he could be developed.

 

The Chiefs have in fact been blowing draft picks on quarterbacks when it apparently would have been advantageous to draft players for other positions. Or maybe you meant 'draft higher than fifth round.' I'm not sure where anyone is going to draw the arbitrary line as to where a quarterback must be drafted in order to be a viable passing option, but it does seem that Dak Prescott, who has had marginal success as a quarterback in Dallas while playing behind an excellent offensive line, would not have worked in Kansas City with things such as they are.

 

I'm not advocating being irresponsible about the quarterback position, but the whole "The Chiefs don't invest in the quarterback position" argument is founded on a combination of lies, lies that exaggerate the value of drafting quarterbacks when you have a quarterback that can be a productive starter, and lies that obscure the reality of the efforts the Chiefs have gone to to find a quarterback that can be a reliable starter.

[PhataLerror 370]

Maybe the Chiefs were going azchief's way until the Donks swooped in that grabbed Lynch.  Sometimes things just don't break for the team when drafting.  When they had the first pick, there was no obvious QB pick worth it.  Aside from that year, there haven't been a lot of QBs that most of us would have selected except in hindsight.  I wanted the Chiefs to draft Tannenhill a few years ago.  Maybe there were a few more cases that don't come to mind, but in general, the Chiefs haven't passed over obvious choices at the QB position.  NE got lucky with Brady.  GB had Rogers drop to them unexpectedly.  It just hasn't happened for the Chiefs even if they wanted to follow azchief's philosophy.

Or maybe Aaron Rodgers became Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith became Alex Smith because Rodgers was drafted by a quality team that had a Hall of Fame quarterback while Alex Smith was drafted by a front office in disarray, with no short-term or long-term focus, terrible coaching, and an awful roster. For the same reason, Tom Brady became Tom Brady instead of Tom Savage.

 

Bad teams destroy quality quarterbacking prospects. We know this; history tells us this. The Chiefs haven't even been a good team until they turned the corner in 2015, and although expectations were high heading into 2016, the Chiefs haven't consistently fielded the roster they are purported to have due to injuries. The Chiefs have reached the critical mass in roster quality where Alex Smith can help them be effective, but they are not better than a "good roster" offensively, with the offensive line definitely bringing up the rear. Spencer Ware was nobody until he started behind Alex Smith. Jamaal Charles had his career year behind Alex Smith.

 

Alex Smith isn't the quarterback that makes the world go around, but he's not given due credit for being a player that makes the Chiefs' offense far better than the sum of its parts. Take care of him, his shoulder, his head, his spleen, and he'll take care of you.

[qnet 1,150]

I will have to come back and read the comments later, but I'm for Alex Smith.

[DieHard 2,061]

I think Foles has the most upside and will be great. Right now, you develop Fokes and play Smith. Smith does have mobility and a conservative thought process. That is what we need right now to chalk up wins.

 

The Super Bowl talk is interesting. If we end up over matched in an AFC Champinship game, maybe you take a punchers chance with Foles. But I think we are a defensive team that needs a guy like Smith to win the division. He is playing really well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[qnet 1,150]

I feel sorry for Chiefs fans. We've been having this same conversation, in some form; over and over during the years. I once thought like some of you, looking at stats and past drafts of Qb's who won the SB. I just think things just haven't fallen the Chiefs way, but I don't think it's for lack of trying.

 

Teams have won the SB all kinds of ways, and who's to say the Chiefs can't win with the formula they have. I bet Giants fans didn't think their 9-7 team would win the SB that season, and I also don't think it was solely because of Eli Manning, not anywhere near because of him imo.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I think Foles has the most upside and will be great. Right now, you develop Fokes and play Smith. Smith does have mobility and a conservative thought process. That is what we need right now to chalk up wins.

 

The Super Bowl talk is interesting. If we end up over matched in an AFC Champinship game, maybe you take a punchers chance with Foles. But I think we are a defensive team that needs a guy like Smith to win the division. He is playing really well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I think we have a puncher's chance with Smith, too. We're not the favorites, of course, though.

[Calichief 3,016]

I think we have a puncher's chance with Smith, too. We're not the favorites, of course, though.

More like bob and weave.

[KCSLC2008 606]

More like bob and weave.

Disagree, but that's fine. We've taken better shots down field this year with better targets. Nothing great, but better than last year, even with Smith. Yes, I am aware that playoff teams will be better than the Raiders, Saints, and Colts, but we still have a puncher's chance with who we have either way.

[jetlord 10,209]

Without a stable line and a few targets, no QB would win the SB.  The Chiefs finally have a shot at it.  They're not one of the two top teams, but they're good enough that when healthy, they can compete with anyone.

[Chiefmanzada 466]

Without a stable line and a few targets, no QB would win the SB. The Chiefs finally have a shot at it. They're not one of the two top teams, but they're good enough that when healthy, they can compete with anyone.

No I believe this Chiefs team is in the top 2. They have so much talent it's ridiculous. The defense will be top 3 once Houston returns and there's a crazy amount of weapons on offense.

 

The reason they should be a top 2 is because of all the adversity they have overcome. Berry beating cancer, winning 11 straight last yeat after starting 1-5, Houston soon to return from ACL, Ford stepping up, Foles filling in, Jamaal fighting to get back, Chris Jones making his fulfilling, Hill and DAT. I mean, it's ludicrous that this team isn't undefeated right now.

 

If Alex Smith can step up and go down the field like Foles did against the Colts, who the hell can beat them with this defense once Houston returns?! A power offense is what needs to be assembled, and they have all the weapons to do so.

[eraser 722]

Alex Smith hasn't looked right this season. Last year, Smith was equally mediocre for the first six games. Smith began to play with abandon, and the OL seemed to do better. This season has been similar, except for the OL, which has been better from the start. Last Sunday, Smith took a few shots. He began to take the opportunity to run, but paid the price.This could be because of rule changes within the NFL. A similar thing has happened with Cam Newton. Newton's yards per carry is a little less, and his attempts are down to a little more than 6 per game. Smith is carrying the ball barely more than twice per game, and only averaging 1.6 yards per carry.

 

One reason quarterbacks ran successfully a lot more last season was the league made an emphasis on concussions, and penalized hard hits on the QB. This year, the league has defined the role of the QB into passer or runner. When the QB is acting as a passer, the league wants refs to treat them differently. As quarterbacks run the ball, they are treated as a runner. They get no deference to their position when they run the ball. That means teams know they can be more aggressive against a running quarterback, and quarterbacks know running the ball may shorten their career.

 

Alex Smith had his best season last year. He had a huge advantage. When teams disregarded his running ability, Smith gashed them for huge gains. If teams left a man to spy on him, Smith was able to find receivers open. The advantage is not there this time around, and we all have to acknowledge Smith is a year older. Also, although Smith is under contract until 2018, the Chiefs can begin to save money by releasing him as early as next year. Smith may be playing a bit more cautious than he did in 2015. There are not too many 33 year old running quarterbacks. Older vets such as Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady made it to old age by throwing the ball instead of making long runs.

 

Currently, Alex Smith is better than Nick Foles. Foles has good size, a nice arm, and a steady composure. However, the game is less natural for him, even in this system (that he learned in Philly, under Reid). This year, it would be best for Smith to get healthy, and play to the best of his ability. He likely is not going to be the runner as he was in 2015, but he can be a little more instinctual than he has been this year, so far.

[DieHard 2,061]

I think we have a puncher's chance with Smith, too. We're not the favorites, of course, though.

Agreed. I am just not ready to hand the trophy to NE. Besides them, nobody is far and away appear better than us. Screw those guys.