The QB Who Should Be On Our Wish List: Brian Brohm
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 10:38 AM CDT
205 comments
From the FanPosts. -Primetime
There's been a lot of buzz around Arrowhead Pride and other Chiefs fan sites the last couple of weeks about how the Chiefs should acquire a young quarterback. Last week it was Brady Quinn...the backup for the Cleveland Browns that many Kansas City fans grit their teeth that we missed in the 2007 draft (although Dwayne Bowe is not a bad consolation prize). Personally I was never behind that since a) I'm not all that convinced that Brady Quinn is going to be a good pro quarterback, because b) he's looked utterly underwhelming in the playing time he has gotten, and c) as Derek Anderson is not looking like he's going to be replicating his 2007 season we would have had to pay through the nose for Quinn even if he was available (which he apparently never was).
But there is a young QB out there that I think we should be seriously considering acquiring...Brian Brohm.
Going into the 2007 season, Brian Brohm was being touted as the "can't miss" prospect for the 2008 draft. He was the son of a former Louisville quarterback (Oscar Brohm) and the brother of another (Jeff, who'd also played in the NFL). He'd averaged 3,000 yards, 17 TDs (and only 5 INTs) per year, with a 66% completion percentage. Under the tutelage of Bobby Petrino, Brohm had turned Louisville into a football powerhouse, with Brohm and Michael Bush leading a potent attack. Basically, Brohm was Peyton Manning with a solid but unspectacular arm and was projected to go in the top 10 of the draft (possibly ending up with his old mentor, Bobby Petrino, in Atlanta). A year later, he was a second round pick, after which he got buried as the 3rd stringer on a depth chart behind a far less touted rookie. So what happened during that time?
The answer appears to be...nothing. Brohm's season in 2007 was almost identical to the two previous seasons, except that in 2007 he was Louisville's primary offensive threat. He passed for over 4,000 yards. He completed 65% of his passes. He threw for a career high 30 TDs (with only 12 interceptions). He played in a solid conference. He stayed healthy. But his team, under new coach Steve Kragthorpe, went 6-6 and the rest of the squad fell apart. His team's leading rusher ran for less than 700 yards. His team's defense wasn't able to hold any opponent to single digits in points (and gave up 20 or more points seven times in 12 games). Basically, he became a great quarterback on a bad team...and even though his performance didn't drop off at all, it appears that scouts and teams started to wonder if maybe he wasn't part of the problem. All of his flaws (non-cannon arm, knee injury his sophomore year, thumb injury that caused him to miss a month his junior year) became magnified. Then he had an underwhelming preseason draft camp. Teams apparently talked their way out of drafting the can't miss prospect...so he ended up falling to the middle of the second round, and now he's currently the 3rd string QB for the Green Bay Packers, largely because he played like a rookie in training camp (which shouldn't have been unexpected, although the Packers coaching staff raved about his ability to absorb the playbook) and because Mike McCarthy took a liking to Matt Flynn.
So the question is, why is this kid worth the risk? Why should he be on our wish list when everybody else soured on him? And the answer is, because he didn't really do anything to hurt his own draft stock. Brohm's performance in college was nothing short of spectacular. Brohm's numbers at Louisville measure up well to Peyton Manning's numbers at Tennessee, and Tom Brady's numbers at Michigan. They were better than Carson Palmer's numbers at USC, and Jay Cutler's numbers at Vanderbilt. And because when it comes down to it preseason draft camps can't be trusted to judge a prospect's potential. Every year some so-so college player rockets up the charts because he's able to jump really high, or bench press a lot of weight, or run a fast sprint (Mike Mamula being the most prominent example of this)...and then when that player gets to the NFL he goes back to being a so-so player because having physical tools is not the same as having football skills. And the reverse is also true, every year some prospect drops down the draft list because they didn't wow anyone in camp, because they were good players on bad teams, or great players in schools that no one pays attention to, or great players who just happened to make the wrong comment or to pick up an injury at an inopportune time, or who just happened to have a bad day when the scouts just happened to be watching. And Brian Brohm was one of the unlucky ones.
And none of this changes the fact that Brian Brohm is one hell of a quarterback prospect, who's demonstrated both the tools and the skills to be able to make it in the NFL. He's quite possibly a better quarterback prospect than anyone who'll be available in the 2009 NFL draft. And there's a chance he could be available right now at a reasonable price. Green Bay right now is a team competing to win the Super Bowl, and they've got two weaknesses...cornerback (now that Al Harris' agent has apparently announced that his client just tore his spleen and is out for the year) and backup quarterback (where the only QBs sitting behind a somewhat injury-prone Aaron Rodgers are two rookies). And we just so happen to have a solid veteran cornerback and a decent backup quarterback available to trade, as well as a very high draft pick in the first round in 2009 (which would actually be a bargain for us because we would be getting a QB who's still a first-round caliber prospect at a second-round player's salary, which means our risk is greatly minimized...and quite possibly we could snag their first rounder out of the deal in return). There's very little not to like about a trade like this...for either the Packers or us.
Now, if we trade for Brohm, will he be able to come in and turn the offense around this year? Realistically, no. He's given no indication he's ready to play this year and there are so many problems with the offense that Peyton Manning could come in and we'd probably still be horrible (mainly because we have a terrible line and a terrible head coach who calls terrible plays). In fact, it's probably not advisable to even make Brohm the starter this season. He's a rookie, rookie QBs usually need time to develop, and we don't want him learning on the job behind this offensive line. He'd get killed (his injury history is nowhere near Croyle's but he's also not Brett Favre) and we'd be out a top five draft pick and a backup QB and cornerback. But he'd possibly be able to start next year and there's a great chance that (if he follows a standard QB progression) he'll be the Chiefs starter in 2009 and hopefully far beyond. And right now, he's about as "buy low" as you're ever going to see in a top QB prospect.
This is a deal worth making. And even if Brohm's not ready to start next season, if the Chiefs grab a stop-gap QB in J.P. Losman and re-sign Croyle to a reasonable deal to be the second or third-stringer, I don't think it's much of a leap to say that the quarterback position will go from our team's biggest weakness to our team's biggest strength in the course of just one year. And that is the way that smart football teams address their problems...looking for creative ways to improve your club in the short-term that build the club for the future based on managed risks that won't cripple your club for years.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
4 recs |
205 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Workout Warriors
Mamula really skyrocketed, I remember that. I’ve heard (and haven’t tested it so don’t blame me if it’s wrong), that most of the “combine guys”, or those who shoot up after a great workout, are usually guys of which there isn’t much tape. Like they had to justify the draft pick by touting these numbers instead of pointing to the tape.
I’m still in the belief that the Packers won’t move him just because Rodgers has been impressive so far. It’s true that they’re built to win now, but they’re also one of the youngest teams so they’re going to built to win now for some time.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I Watched Some Boston College Games When Mamula Was There
I remember thinking during the draft “But that guy didn’t look like a star at B.C….why is he going so high based on a workout?”
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
I did a little post about him and workout warriors way back when I started my own blog. Here.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Actually Read That Piece Back When You Wrote It :)
Before I found AP. Didn’t even realize it was yours. Good article.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha!
I still do all the work there myself. Call it an offspring of AP’s inspiration :) Glad you liked it.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Top Five Draft Pick
Should make anyone seriously consider a trade offer for any third-string QB, even if that QB has potential. And keep in mind that they’ll probably be in the market for a shutdown corner in the draft next year if Harris’ torn spleen is anything like Simms’.
Ted Thompson’s no fool, but adding a veteran backup, a cornerback who can step in and start (assuming Surtain’s healed up by trade time) and a top five pick in exchange for a backup rookie QB that your coach likes less than another rookie QB and your first round pick is a deal any GM should consider. Green Bay would be moving up 20 spots in the NFL draft…a GM like Thompson should be drooling at that idea.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the flip side
I would love to get out of the top 5 and get a QB, as you pointed out, with minimum risk. Solid argument.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flipping The First Rounders
That would be key. Normally you won’t see teams do it because trading up into the top five (which we’re going to be, whether we get Brohm or not) costs you other draft picks as well. But this is a bargain by that standard. They trade away a low first-rounder to move up what will likely be 20 spots and get a QB who could probably do a better job for them this year than Flynn or Brohm could if Rodgers goes down and a cornerback who’s not as good as Al Harris, but who could probably fill in capably as a starter or at least add some depth if they decide to start one of their youngsters.
Biggest downside to us is that we’d be picking later and we’d be taking a fairly large cap hit on Surtain’s contract, but it would be worth it to snag Brohm when you consider what we’d be paying a top 5 draft choice (the cost would essentially be a wash) and we’d still have a shot at getting a very good offensive line prospect (who could probably start) in the late first round to protect our investment in Brohm (or Losman, or whoever).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Works out very well, actually
We get a QB for a smaller risk AND can address the right side of our line at the appropriate position (late 1st instead of early 1st).
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding?
We have our LT and that is the only line position you address in the first round. RT is second round at the absolute highest, and I’m pretty sure we’re set at RT if we let Herb Taylor start there. Interior lineman are third rounders at best.
There is no way I wanna trade out of the top five for a Brohm. Sorry, not gonna happen. I don’t mind giving up our second rounder, which has at least a 100 points on where the Pack drafted Brohm and send them a Surtain and Huard if they even want those guys. But flipping first rounders for Brohm is not worth it.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Draft Pick Point Differential Doesn't Matter On Brohm's Pick
It only matters if you’re swapping those draft picks in a trade. It might have some relevance if you’re operating on the premise that Brohm was only worth the pick at which he was chosen, but my point is that Brohm was highly undervalued and that he deserved to be picked much higher. He was a top five talent going into 2007, who performed like a top five talent in 2007 and the only reason he dropped appears be because his combine workout was underwhelming and because his team in college sucked for reasons that didn’t have anything to do with him. He represents value for the trade, largely because he’s already got a multiyear deal at a bargain price. Of course his agent would probably try to renegotiate that if he were traded, but we’d still have the leverage on him there so we’d still get him cheaper than we would a top five draft pick. And there are plenty of guards (and probably a few tackles) available where the Packers will likely pick in the first round and that’s going to be the area of prime need for us anyway.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And he's also buried at #3 on their roster for a REASON
So why would we even offer anything NEAR a top five pick for a guy that they have behind the SEVENTH round pick from the same draft on their depth chart? There might be a reason that they have dropped his value in GB even further down from where they acquired him. I never bought into the Brohm talk, but his value didn’t just fall in the draft, it has fallen even since he got into GB. Even if he is QBOTF potential (and I’m not sold on that), what you are proposing we offer for a THIRD STRING QB is ridiculous. He can be had cheap. Let’s not overpay for him. Uggh. I gotta say its times like this that I actually appreciate CP. We know he won’t overpay in a trade like this.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because He's A Rookie
Rookie QBs’ development patterns are unpredictable. Some can step in and play right away, some can’t. And right now Matt Flynn appears to be more ready to play than Brohm. But past performance indicates that Brohm has a much higher ceiling than Flynn as a passer.
Your point about his value dropping with Green Bay is a valid concern, but also let’s consider that the trade I’m discussing isn’t really hurting us for the future. We’d still have a first round pick. We wouldn’t be trading away players who are part of our team’s long-term plans. We’d just be trading down in the draft to get a guy who’s got as good a chance as any prospect ever has of being a franchise QB. And that’s a managed, well-considered risk that I think is worth taking.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point isn't that we shouldn't make an offer for him
All I’m saying is that he has done nothing to warrant sacrificing a top five pick and he wasn’t drafted anywhere near high enough where we would need to offer that in value. We can get him for MUCH CHEAPER. There is nothing that would convince me to move out of our high first round pick other than someone wanting to trade up into it and offering us more picks for it. And you said there is nothing in the the draft that we would want that high up. I gotta disagree. There is always someone worth it up there, but even still, we’ll be able to deal with someone when that time comes. Losing the position we have for BROHM (?!?!?!)… you gotta be joking or smoking.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
JT O'Sullivan
is who I’m seeing might be coming. He’ll be a free agent, he is younger, and barring any injuries, better than anyone we have right now. The only downside is if he does really well, the 49ers might either keep him, or his price will be very high.
I like the Brohm idea, but who knows what will happen. Where’s the Green Bay bloggers when we need them?
have you seen my baseball?
by IISaiNtII on Sep 23, 2008 11:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wary of Martz QBs
I think JT O’Sullivan is more of a product of Martz’s system than individual talent. I’m very wary of his QBs.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
O'Sullivan
He’s going nowhere, at least not before the trade deadline. Nolan’s got to win this year to keep his job and O’Sullivan’s the only QB there who offers a realistic probability of that.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just stirred the pot
at the Packers blog…
let’s see what happens :)
have you seen my baseball?
by IISaiNtII on Sep 23, 2008 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good call
Here is a link to the thread so we can follow to see what they have to say.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Move
The downside about most trades fans dream up is that the fans usually overrate their own players and assume that the other team’s GM is a complete idiot. This trade, though, seems like it would be very attractive to the Packers (or any GM) so I wonder what the Packers fans would think about it. It just felt like a trade that would help both teams.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No I agree
Which is why I brought it up to them. While it may never happen, it’s an interesting prospect to see what they think about what could happen, or what they want to happen with it.
have you seen my baseball?
by IISaiNtII on Sep 23, 2008 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really want to know
Why Brohm is so low. I created a FanPost as well in case others don’t see you in the comments section. If we get some sort of response to our questions then we’ll move from there (this is why I love SBN’s streamlined network..).
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
I thought about creating one, but didn’t feel comfortable doing it :)
Probably the better bet. But I doubt any real talk comes for awhile. It’s lunchtime in the Midwest!
have you seen my baseball?
by IISaiNtII on Sep 23, 2008 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get in the way
Of a Midwesterner and his/her lunch.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
About to make mine now
SO WATCH THE EFF OUT!
have you seen my baseball?
by IISaiNtII on Sep 23, 2008 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shoulda kept Trent Green
He’s not done! He’s replacing Bulger in St. Louis.
It could be worse, folks. We could have signed a QB to a massive deal then benched him. It’s the equivalent of benching LJ right now.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
To negate the Brian Brohm "system QB" claim
He did play under two different coaches at Louisville so that might alleviate some of the concern. H/T UC a few days ago.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 11:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Am I missing something here?
Good post, but I just can’t agree with it.
I understand some of your points (agree with getting out of the top 5 spot), but to give up everything you’re proposing for someone who went in the second round, just doesn’t sit well with me. I think we would be giving up way too much in return for an unproven talent and a slot 20 spots lower in the draft. I just think he’s #3 for a reason, and if we were to get him, we could probably do it without having to swap 1st rounders. He went late in the second round for a reason, every team passed on him at least once, most twice, meaning they all saw something that lead them to believe he wasn’t worth it, and now, after not taking a single snap during the regular season, his stock has climbed so much that he’s worth a 1st round pick? I just don’t buy it.
I also think there’s something to be said of veteran leadership, and when you have 2 rookie corners, you need someone like Surtain for his experience and insight, otherwise our corners won’t develop nearly as quick (or possibly as good) as we all are hoping for.
by Chiefs n Chopper on Sep 23, 2008 12:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Surtain And Development Of Corners
Right now Surtain’s actually out with an injury, so he isn’t helping anyone develop. And after this season’s up he’s a prime candidate for the chopping block because his salary will be larger than the cap hit from cutting him, so he’s unlikely to be here to help anyone develop in 2009. And besides, developing rookies what the secondary coach is supposed to be for.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
There’s not looking like too much in the first five picks that will help our area of prime need. Maybe a defensive end, but right now I’d say that the ability to make it through a season without losing the quarterback is more important. And the only offensive line position that really merits a top five pick, as Primetime pointed out, is left tackle, which we drafted this year. So trading back to draft other offensive linemen makes sense and there will be linemen available where the Packers are drafting.
As for Brohm, is he a risk? Of course, all young unproven QBs are a risk. But to my mind he represents a higher probability of being a good pro QB than anyone we’ll likely see in the 2009 draft, he’ll have a year under his belt in the NFL with a good coach (which can only help with our development of him) and we wouldn’t be mortgaging the future of the franchise to get him.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
DE
Michael Johnson…I’d be happy with him.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Call me crazy
and this could be the dumbest idea anyone’s thrown out, but what about Michael Oher? I realize we have Albert, and we’d be asking him to move again, but hear me out. This offseason there were rumblings that we might move Waters to center. What if that actually happened, Albert takes over the position he played in college and then you have Oher at LT, wouldn’t that be upgrading all 3 positions?
This is so far-fetched it probably doesn’t warrant a response, but something I’ve been thinking about after realizing how bad we are this year.
by Chiefs n Chopper on Sep 23, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's Not That Far-Fetche
But we’ve already got a lot of money tied up in Albert, he’s looking like the real deal at LT (he’s been surprisingly good considering how much time he’s missed) and our real areas of concern right now are QB and the right side of the offensive line. We can address one of them with the top five pick, but not both. With this trade we address the QBOTF situation (and the QB of the present situation if we sign Losman as a free agent) and there are almost always high quality tackles and guards available in the late first round where the Packers would be picking. Two birds with one stone with this trade.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only OL position worth a first or even early second round pick
is LT.
C, G, RT are all late second early third rounders AT ABSOLUTE BEST?
Did you do an apprenticeship with Matt Millen?
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Steve Wisniewski
Guard, drafted in the first round…turned in a Hall of Fame caliber career with the Raiders. I wouldn’t argue that he was a bad draft pick. Same with Harris Barton (who played everywhere on the line). Jeff Otah, playing RT for the Panthers was an excellent pickup in the first this year.
Any offensive line position is worth considering in the first round so long as the talent level is high enough. Right tackle is a perfectly acceptable position to draft with a first round pick…in fact, it’s an excellent position to draft with a mid to late first round pick.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Herb Taylor
We already got a capable RT on the roster. If only Herm would ride Sackintosh out of town.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Wondered Why Sackintosh Was Still Playing
Then I realized that Carl Peterson signed him to a six year contract…not a 2 or 3 year deal like I’d originally thought.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As For My Matt Millen Apprenticeship
I wouldn’t have even considered QB Mike McMahon with a fourth round choice. Nor would I have taken a USC receiver who’d been out of football for a year (Mike Williams) with the #10 overall. Nor would I have built my receiving corps before my lines and defense.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
the Matt Millen thing was unfair…. I owe you an apology on that. But it was less about drafting and more about trade value. CP absolutely screwed him on the trade to move up and select Albert IMO.
All I’m saying is we can get Brohm for much cheaper.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apology Accepted :)
If we could get Brohm for our second round pick I’d be ecstatic. But I also recognize that a) Ted Thompson’s one of the savvier GMs out there, b) we’re operating from a position of desperate need at QB, and c) Brohm’s pedigree is better than anyone coming out of college next year and we do need a young QB to develop…no matter who’s in charge next year.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And When I Say "We're Operating From A Position Of Desperate Need"
What I mean is that it’s blatantly obvious to everyone we desperately need a QB and no GM in the NFL cuts a break on a trade for a team in desperate need. I said I thought we should swap first rounders because I believe that’s actually the best deal we could possibly get out of Ted Thompson (and that Brohm is the best QB prospect we can get, either via trade or from this draft class).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe so
But Thompson and CP both know that Brohm isn’t ready to start this season. So what good does that do our “desperate need”? We can address a QB for next season with plenty of offseason options (Losman, Cassel, draft, etc.). Brohm will NOT play this season, and if he does, it’s maybe a last two games type. I’d personally rather start Thiggy for the foreseeable future than Brohm. (ok, that might be a stretch). Either way, our “desperate need” would only be addressed by someone NFL ready….
And Brohm simply is not ready.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Helps Us For Next Year
Even if we were to trade for Brohm I wouldn’t want him to start this year. Hell, let Croyle, Thigpen, Martin, Bartel, and Hagans get beat up behind the line this year…none of those guys is likely to be a starter for this team next year, it’s not like the offense is ever going to be decent with Herm in charge, and it would be irresponsible to put a rookie behind that line until it’s demonstrated that it can do at least a semi-decent job of pass protection. Let Brohm be the third-stringer this season unless he shows to the team that he’s ready to start (and has at least a minimal ability to avoid the rush). The key is to have a guy you can start playing minutes next year (when, hopefully, we have a real head coach and a real GM who doesn’t try to build an o-line off of waiver rejects) and who can start for years after that.
As for next season, I still think the Chiefs ought to try and sign Losman to come in and start for at least a season. He can be had for a reasonable price I’m sure and he is ready to play and can be the starter until either Brohm’s ready to take over or until we’ve decided that Brohm isn’t the answer.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If thats the case
We wouldn’t be so desperate to get him NOW that we’d have to negotiate from such a weak position and give up a top three draft pick for him.
I’m personally not sold on Brohm, but Al Davis could play QB better than our current roster, so he’s worth looking at. But he’s not even the most attractive option for us once the offseason rolls around so why pay through the teeth for a 3rd string QB. He can be had for much cheaper.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Usually a GM would want a draft pick or multipule picks
for a player. Swapping selections hardly seems to be suitable enough to satisfy this savvy GM as you put it. Plus its so early into the season that nobody knows who will be worth that high a selection, or if it a player in a position of need for the Packers. Then may feel that the player they need might fall into their laps. A draft pick nothing less (probably with a player), I’m convinced of that…
by aPacificChief on Sep 23, 2008 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't G Brian Waters an early round pick?
I don’t remember… maybe I’m wrong.
by Vince D on Sep 23, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Undrafted Free Agent
A real diamond in the rough. Don’t find too many of those.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But then
We would have essentially spent the 15th pick on a guard last year, which would be quite the blunder in the front office and you know how they feel about admitting their mistakes..
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
But when it really comes down to it, if 2 years down the line we have an all-pro left side of the line, does it really still look like a blunder?
by Chiefs n Chopper on Sep 23, 2008 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Brohm Turns Out To Be Good And We Still Don't Have A Good Quarterback
Then yes, it is a blunder.
But, that said, if we don’t trade out of the pick then I’d be fine with them picking Oher. Either he or Albert can move to right tackle then. I wouldn’t move Albert to guard though, mainly because guards are a hell of a lot easier to find than tackles.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Biggest Problem With The Oher Scenario, Though
Is that if he plays well enough this year to merit top five consideration, we may not get him because right now the St. Louis Rams are looking like they might be worse than we are. And they need offensive line more than anything else right now, so Oher will probably top their draft list.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the Alex Barron experiment over?
I thought he was supposed to play on the left side after Pace.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's Been An Above Average Right Tackle
But they weren’t thrilled with him on the left because he’s just too inconsistent. From what the reports said, they were seriously considering Jake Long with their top pick if he was available.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
I don’t know if you’ve been following the Rams this year (I have mainly because I’ve got Steven Jackson on my non-AP fantasy team) but their line is the only one in football that’s possibly worse than ours. They’re beyond terrible. So even if Barron were able to replace Pace, I suspect they’d still be looking at Oher because they need people with talent there.
The state of Missouri’s going to have a historically bad year for pro football, looks like.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just thinking that Brohm doesn't merit a first round pick
We passed on him twice in the first round last year, and again in the second. I just have a hard time giving up our top pick to swap spots for him. I think had we thought him worthy, we would have gone after him like what we did with Albert and traded up. (From a personal stance, I think if I’m going to watch this team earn this top 5 pick the rest of the season, I’d rather see it go towards something with more potential, what that is yet, I don’t know cause it’s too early to tell, I just don’t think it’s Brohm IMO).
by Chiefs n Chopper on Sep 23, 2008 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
I agree, to some point, about waiting it out. Maybe one of the current college QBs will be a legitimate top 5 pick but as of right now it doesn’t seem likely.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brohm
Doesn’t even merit a third rounder IMO. I’d rather roll the dice on Thiggy developing than take Brohm. And I mean that. Seriously.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's Completely Insane
Do you realize how terrible Thigpen was for most of his career in college? At 1AA? For the first two years he didn’t complete 50% of his passes. His junior year he completed 54%. His senior year was so out of line with his previous three seasons that it has all the hallmarks of being a fluke year and his performance as a pro has been a lot closer to his first three college seasons than his last one. Thigpen is in no way, shape or form an NFL prospect. He doesn’t really even belong on an active NFL roster.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one thing Herm has done
Is that he’s shown a propensity towards competently developing defensive backs. I’d be happy with or without Surtain there.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I for one
Will NOT risk losing the possibility of getting Rey Maualuga (the single greatest MLB prospect to come out in a long time) for BROHM. Jesus.
This isn’t to say we pick Rey so early, ILBs normally fall further, but the Packers pick will be so much later that it will screw us for getting him.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 12:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't put your blinders on
QB is a much, much bigger area of concern than MLB. I agree that Maluaga is looking pretty legit but QB is much more important in the grand scheme of things. Ask Baltimore.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BRAVO....Sudden....Bravo....
We need help at Linebacker…..and Rey most definitely tops might wish list. Linebacker is the deepest class in the ‘09 class, and he should be a top 10 selection. Did you see that game against Ohio ST? The Dude is a stud.
The QB prospects are realy weak….a scout said on draft day if need a QB you take him now (’08) otherwise you’ll be waiting another 2 years for a legitimate franchise QB (I hate that term, but as Herm would say “it is what it is”)
by aPacificChief on Sep 23, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its easy to ask Baltimore
considering they already have one of the best MLBs to ever play the game. And didn’t they win the SB with Trent Dilfer? Things that make you go “hmmmmm”
And I’m not saying we don’t go for a QB. All I’m saying is that trading out of a surefire top five pick for Brohm (?!?!?!?!) would make us the laughingstock of the NFL (as if we weren’t already). But since we’re on the subject of QBs, I think Stafford would be a far better bet and use of such a high pick than Brohm, and I’m not all that big on Stafford.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 12:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, But No
Stafford has not been a remotely comparable QB to Brohm in college. He has never come close to outperforming Brohm in any season. He’s an average college QB who plays for a very good team.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=183518
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lets try and keep in mind
Stafford goes week to week playing top level SEC opponents, just like Cutler did.
Brohm went from week to week playing the midmajors of the world, or teams that have just barely reached national prominence, East Carolina, Cincinatti, Connecticut, Temple, South Florida, etc.
Im not knocking Brohm or hyping Stafford, but I think it’s important to realize that its reasonable for a quality QB’s numbers to dip when he’s playing against the best defenses the college world has to offer. I think Saturday will be big for Stafford against Alabama. The Tide have a very good pass rush and are tight in coverage. They may also do a better job than anyone this year of shutting down Moreno. In short, things will get HARD for Stafford. Lets see how he does. Hell, Id like to see how Brohm would do in that situation.
Naming my son Brodie Damon
by troy145 on Sep 23, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brohm Wasn't Playing Stiffs
That senior year was put up against very good teams from West Virginia, Rutgers and USF, as well as Connecticut (who had a solid season) and Pittsburgh (who aren’t great, but usually field some NFL caliber talent). So I think the whole “Stafford played in the SEC” argument is really overblown and not sufficient to explain the giant disparity in performance levels between Stafford and Brohm.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep In Mind
That Florida is in the SEC and they haven’t turned out a good NFL QB in years. Same with Alabama. And LSU (JaMarcus Russell, in fact, is looking worse as the season progresses).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i think for this discussion
the level of offensive talent in Stafford or Brohms opponents is irrelevant. All that matters that affects the QB’s stats is the level of talent on defense. And while USF, WVU and UConn had good teams, their defenses were no where near where this year’s SEC is at.
Naming my son Brodie Damon
by troy145 on Sep 23, 2008 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the hands down best conference in the NCAA
Look, like I said, I’m not really sold on Stafford either (but at least he’s actually had to play against capable defenses in the SEC, Brohm had more patsies on his schedule than a MWC team). I say we address one of our top 3 areas of need with the first pick: MLB. If not, we trade down if possible.
There will be QBs of value in the early second.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 12:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Croyle Came Out Of The SEC
And so far he’s looked nothing like a quality QB in the pros, even when he wasn’t hurt. And his numbers at Alabama were eerily similar to Stafford’s.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did I say draft Stafford?
No. I said keep the pick and get Rey. We can find a QB in the second.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 1:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But Not One As Promising As Brohm
If you’re looking for a QB of the future to build around down the road, they simply don’t get more promising than Brohm.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I'm underreacting
But I dont agree with bringing in Brohm. He looked terrible in the preseason. Honestly I would rather wait for Croyle to come back, even if it means losing. And I think getting one of the top two LB prospects is more important to this team in next years draft (defense wins championships). I also think we are aborting free agency too much. I know we have made some horrific free agent signings in our past, but what about guys like Trent? So what if we havent been able to draft and groom a great QB in the past. If we can bring in a young/promising free agent QB (Losman is an example not necessarily him) and keep building this team I think we are better off. I feel like the panic attacks are setting in for everybody.
by Shawn on Sep 23, 2008 1:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
In other words
I dont think we should trade right now.
by Shawn on Sep 23, 2008 1:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I definitely think we should grab him
if we are gonna grab any QB this year. I’ve been high on him a long time! I think we could get away with a third rounder, Surtain, and Huard for him… I hope?
by Vince D on Sep 23, 2008 1:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not When We're Desperate
Thompson will never let Brohm go for a third rounder, unless you threw in Huard, Surtain, LJ, Tony G., and Waters. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He might have been refering to my Brennan reference.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brennan
I would have been happy if the Chiefs had grabbed him too. I thought he had the potential to be a good pro QB. But I also thought the Redskins grabbed him a little early, so I was fine that the Chiefs didn’t.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So why not make a move for him
Chances are we could get him cheaper than we can get Brohm.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But in Jim Zorn’s system people are already questioning Jason Campbell as the sure-fire, long-term starter.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
When you add in Campbell’s injury history…
Well, Brennan isn’t likely to be as inexpensive as Brohm. Plus, we don’t have anything in the way of players that Washington needs.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lets just get campbell?
Naming my son Brodie Damon
by troy145 on Sep 23, 2008 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oher
I would love to have this kid but instead of moving Waters to center why not move him to RG. That way you don’t change the whole face of the line. I really like Niswanger and think that with time he could develop into a very good center.
so my line would look like this
LT- Oher
LG- Albert (natural position)
C- Niswanger
RG-Waters- so he can stay Guard
RT- Herb Taylor or anyone not named Macintosh
This line gives us the ability to protect the QB so much more. granted we need to pick up a Quarterback in free agency or draft one but my personal opinion is that we need to get at least one more lineman in the draft (Oher) a QB a MLb, and somebody to develop to replace Brain Water down the road, whether its draft or free agency we need someone to take his place eventually, that was our problem with Roaf and Shields we didn’t draft anyone special to groom to be their replacement and that is why our line sucks, but anyway i know i am totally off topic but i just thought I’d throw my two cents in
by IamtheGreatest on Sep 23, 2008 1:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just e-mailed Michael Lombardi of SI.com
His response as to why Brohm is 3rd on the depth chart:
He did not play well in the pre season and he is learning the pro game, I doubt he is for sale.
Pretty much what we all thought on here as well. And with Thompson’s draft history, it’s unlikely he’ll move up (although they did a few times while he was under Ron Wolf).
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 2:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Heck no to Brohm
Thats too much for him. I say we sign JP Losman to stabilize the position for at least a year. The 2009 class looks really meager and I don’t want to invest top 5 money in a unproven quarterback. I think we should draft Laurinitus out of Ohio State. He would help in mid zone pass coverage and would STOP THE RUN!!! Did u see Thomas being dragged by Turner? That was embarrassing. I think we can address the offensive line by signing a RT out of free agency. There are a ton out there. I personally like Max Starks from the Steelers. There is a good chance they will let him go. Then, I would draft a powerful RG in the 2nd in Herman Johnson from LSU. 2010 is littered with good quarterbacks especially in Bradford from OU.
by chiefsfan1384 on Sep 23, 2008 2:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Rey Maluauga
is a better MLB prospect than Laurinitus.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm torn
between the two. I guess Maluauga comes from a pro system in college so I will concede that he is better.
by chiefsfan1384 on Sep 23, 2008 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've mentioned this each and every time, and I'll keep saying it.
Brohm’s a spread quarterback. If you notice, most of the quarterbacks that come out of that system? Don’t work out too well. There’s a reason.
The system essentially floods a college level field with receivers and backs to stretch the defenses so thin that they can’t possibly defend all the options. There’s more to it, including spreading the lineman wider to create different gap management, protect the pocket, etc. but the gist is that most of the spread offenses are putting up ridiculous numbers right now in the Big 12. Harrell and Daniel are obliterating record books. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying these guys aren’t great college QBs. Chase Daniel will (God-willing) win the Heisman this year because he plays with control, with leadership, and has a great arm. But there’s more to the NFL game. The personnel is drastically different.
Here’s a great article about it: http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/8473298/Spread-offense-QBs-have-to-fight-the-stigma
It’s ironic to find Crawford petitioning for a spread quarterback, given his feelings on the first modern spread NFL pick: Alex Smith.
Here’s another great article on it: http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?columnist=mcshay_todd&id=3542692
And another: http://year2.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/spread-quarterbacks-in-the-nfl/
Here’s the biggest issue. When faced with a big, massive, fast defensive line, like, oh, say 80% of the NFL? You can’t run that system. The DBs are fast enough to stay with their man in man-to-man, and the zones are tricky enough to slow down the QB to the point where a blitzer or pass rusher can attack the quarterback, unless you have an all-pro O-line.
But forget that, because it’s clear we’re never adopting the spread with Herm at the helm. The issue then becomes the fact that traditional passing quarterbacks posses more of what NFL scouts and personnel systems are looking for. Simple read progression, accuracy, game-management, and high velocity versus high distance throws. While the spread takes an extremely smart quarterback to master because of the number of checkdowns, it also provides more options for the quarterback to evaluate. He’s got time to find that open guy in the center of the zone. What? They doubled his primary receivers on go routes? No problem, the tight end should be right about…. there. There’s no time in the NFL, and a lot of the time NFL QBs have to throw to positions, not receivers.
Hey, this is painful for me to say. I think Chase Daniel should have streets named after him. I love the spread. I think it’s revolutionary, fun, and effective. At the college level. But Petrino in particular is known for utilizing the spread offense to run up quarterback ratings, because he can. You want a nice preliminary example? Watch next year’s Arkansas team. They will go from one of the worst teams in the SEC to one of the best offensively, with Mallet at quarterback under the spread option. In two years, Mallet will go from transfer student to top 10 pick potential based on the spread. It’s important that we don’t fall for it.
It’s not that a spread quarterback can’t be effective, it’s that that quarterback has to essentially be a standout beyond all comparison, and be able to do the things that NFL quarterbacks do. I’m not particularly sold on Brohm considering how few NFL talent evaluators seem to consider him capable of that.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The BEST judge of a QB
in college is completion percentage. In this area, Brohm looks like he’s worth the bet.
by Steve.Green on Sep 23, 2008 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again
you’re ignoring the context of the offense. Sure his completion percentage is high. Do you realize Chase Daniel, from MISSOURI (WTF?!) had an 82.1% completion rate the other night? There is always someone open in the system. It’s not like that with NFL defenses.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curious
Then what qualities would you say make Brohm such a question mark? NFL evaluators never seem to get QBs right. That’s because QB is such a growth position. You are never draft/getting what a player is, but rather what a player could be. In this regard, Brohm is yes a bet, but in accordance with Crawford, one of the better bets we would make.
by Steve.Green on Sep 23, 2008 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well if you want to go with
“Is he better than what we have?”
I agree.
I want to see more of Painter, honestly. I’m not sold on Stafford’s arm strength, nor am I sold on Tebow for the same reasons as Brohm (though he’s more physically skilled than any of the above mentioned). I wouldn’t be upset if we went for this. But I think we might be exaggerating how much of a diamond in the rough this kid might be.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Not Sold On Stafford's Ability To Complete Passes
I’ve got no clue about arm strength because I don’t get a lot of Georgia games on TV, but his numbers are not impressive…and QBs with mediocre completion percentages in college have a tough time making it in the pros.
As for the spread offense guys, I think that it’s a bit of a misnomer to say that none of them can make it. Does the system inflate their passing numbers? Absolutely…it inflates yardage, TDs, attempts, possibly INTs, but completion percentages are the difference. Take Hawaii’s system under June Jones…people point to Timmy Chang and say “system QB who couldn’t play in the NFL”. But then Chang played in the same system Brennan did, but Chang hit 57% of his throws and for the last two seasons Brennan was in the 70% range. So there’s what the system helps the QB to do and what the QB does beyond what the system gives him.
I don’t have the time to look the numbers up right now, but this is probably a worthwhile topic to discuss down the road…“system” QBs in college vs. every other type of QB and contrasting college QBs who made it in the pros versus those who didn’t and where the similarities and disparities lay in their statistical performances. I’ll try and do a fanpost on it sometime in the next week or two if anyone’s interested in discussing it.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same on Stafford.
But it really looks like a lot of people on here are going “Threw for 3000 yards? Wow! 70% completion rate? Holy! He’s got to be awesome!” You can’t just look at numbers.
Stafford is a game manager. So I’m just going to start preparing you guys now. If we start making noise about taking a QB with the #1 pick? Stafford is EXACTLY what Herm Edwards wants. Game manager, doesn’t make dumb throws, high velocity on short routes. I’m not sold on him being able to make the big clutch throws.
Again, I’m telling you, this system makes it near impossible to NOT find a wide open guy. I’ve watched it for three years now. It’s run by Florida, formerly Louisville, Missouri, Texas Tech, Illinois. All those systems have been in the top 10 offensively. What, those teams just recruit better? No way. You really have to watch the offense a lot to understand how insanely productive it is against college defenses at this point. Very few teams have figured out how to stop it and even fewer have the personnel necessary to follow that plan.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One Of The Better NFL Commentators
(think it was Collinsworth) made the remark that whenever he hears somebody refer to a QB as a “good game manager” he usually finds it to be a euphemism for “he isn’t very good (but at least he doesn’t screw up all the time)”.
Stafford is EXACTLY what Herm Edwards wants.
You’re not going to sell me with that argument…actually Herm Edwards wanting any QB is enough to make me consider that QB suspect because I’m starting to think that Herm likes crappy QBs because they give him an excuse to run the ball and never pass. “Ah, but we have to establish the run because if we threw the ball that risks an interception”. I honestly believe that if Herm was given Peyton Manning in his prime, a good receiving corps, and a mediocre ground game Peyton would be lucky to get 200 yards a game.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not trying to sell you.
I’m trying to sell you AGAINST him. The kid’s got a questionable arm. Actually Mark Richt and Herm come from the same school of thought. So it makes a lot of sense.
I don’t think Herm wants an “excuse to run the ball and never pass.” That’s a little silly/X-Files-y. But I think he doesn’t want a guy with arm strength who will try the big throw because he thinks it’ll get intercepted instead of score touchdowns.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Against Who?
Stafford? I’m not big on Stafford at all, actually…troy145 and I discussed that elsewhere on this thread.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We keep arguing over the fact that we agree.
Neither of us like Stafford. Stafford sucks. Let’s move on.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just A Misunderstanding
It happens :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think
Stafford is a FAR better pro prospect than Brohm.
But for my money, whatever its worth, I’d go for Bradford, but I he’s not coming out this year.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on Bradford.
But what is it about Stafford that makes him a better prospect, in your opinion?
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stafford
runs a more traditional system, is a decent game manager, has the ability to make most of the throws necessary, and is used to facing tough defensive teams in the SEC.
Not that I’d select him higher than the second. To me, he is on par with Brodie except he can stay healthy better.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Like Bradford
I could see him being a very good pro, and if he were in the 2009 draft I’d say he might merit the consideration of a high pick (assuming he performs at his current level).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Need to see
how he does in Big 12 competition year 2, now that defenses have some film on him.
What am I saying? Behind that line, it doesn’t matter. God I hate Oklahoma and how good they are.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cullen Harper is my guy!
Another guy I like is Washington Huskies QB Jake Locker.
Go to Wide World of Roto for all your fantasy news!
by JasonM on Sep 23, 2008 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Receivers
And it seems strange to me that simply having a lot of receivers has anything to do with your ability to get them the ball. The position is more about what read is the right read. Its like saying Joe Montana was only good because of Jerry Rice.
by Steve.Green on Sep 23, 2008 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay seriously.
You’re not paying attention to how this thing works.
It’s not just having a lot of recievers. Traditionally in a four receiver set, you’ve got twins on each side, but two are positioned closer to the line of scrimmage for the underneath routes. In the spread, it does just that. It uses the entire field. To the point where CBS had to shift their camera angles to adjust for them using the entire field. It uses a wider lineman shift to confuse and delay the pass rush. Yes, they have to make the right read, but in the NFL, you’re not going to find soft holes in the zone like you find in college, and the DB pursuit is a lot tighter and more aggressive. The ability to get them the ball is based on a different set of skillsets than it is in the NFL. None of these guys are throwing 20 yard lasers. They’re throwing thirty yard floaters and 15 yard underneath soft-drops. Those are INTs in the NFL. That’s true for any college QB, it’s true. But the spread system runs up a whole different set of numbers that tend to make people go “WOW!” Don’t get me wrong. Brian Brohm is a much better QB than we have in our system. but you have to take it in context.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Can Understand What You're Saying
But all QBs are essentially products of a system of some sort in college. And like Steve Green said even the best NFL evaluators whiff on QBs frequently, so just because I think Brohm is going to be a good QB doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Like I said, definitely a topic that merits a much more in-depth discussion. For Brohm right now, though, if he were available I think he still represents a very good gamble on the part of the Chiefs if we’re able to swap 1st rounders with the Packers.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The spread
is a different matter. I’m not exaggerating here. It’s not like the option or the power-I or the west coast offense. It’s had a staggering effect on offensive performance in college football. You think Texas Tech is just somehow stacked with talent? It’s Texas Tech (though Crabtree is a fucking demon). Also bear in mind the vast gap between the system Brohm was successful in and ours. He was succesful in a system that was designed to sling it as far as you please. “Go after it, Brian!” I mean, hell, the spread is run shotgun constantly (literally. Missouri doesn’t have an under-center formation, neither does Tech nor Illinois. Is the vast differential becoming clear?), and most of the time, is run in a no-huddle. I’m not kidding. Camera crews struggled last year because they’re used to taking a close-up of players after a play, and the Missouri offense is already at the line. Compare that approach to the “offense” we run.
That’s a pretty steep learning curve.
NFL Evaluators do whiff, but I have a hard time believing that they’re all idiots who know nothing, and us sitting here looking at college football stats on a page having not seen the offenses work are smarter. Come now.
I agree it might be worth it, but it’s got to be a second round pick.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Not Going To Automatically Defer To The Pro Evaluators' Ability
I’ve followed sports long enough to see and hear scouts, GM, coaches, etc. stick their noses up at statistical evaluation and go with their “gut” on whether a player is good or not, only to make incredibly stupid player evaluations because they trust the anecdotal evidence their eyes provide over a more in-depth analysis of what a player does when they’re not watching as well. Look at baseball right now, for example…it’s guys like Theo Epstein and Billy Beane, who fully embrace statistical analysis in addition to scouting who are getting the best value for their dollar. I do agree that statistical analysis is not the end all-be all, but since we don’t have time to go and watch all of the games and break down every player exhaustively (since most of us have full-time jobs that aren’t football-related), it’s the best tool for making a determination on a player’s ability that don’t require us to blindly accept the “experts” word on who’s good and who isn’t…which is important, because most of the time they’re as full of shit as any of us are :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey
you don’t have to sell me on metrics. I cover the NBA professionally and I can tell you that metrics are the most essential part of player analysis. Football it’s a lot different though. So much of it’s contextual. But there are a lot of players whose numbers will wow you but if you don’t take them inside the context of the offense they’re involved in, where they hit in a lineup, how much talent is around them, etc. you’re overlooking relevant information. The real answer to the metrics debate is that they’re an essential component of analysis, but not the end-all answer, the same as scouting reports and workouts. It’s got to be a total picture taking in all the elements in the decision.
That said, I can tell you I used to think the same way you do about “experts” being “full of shit.” Then I started covering games professionally and I can tel you things look a lot different when you watch a shit ton of film and don’t just see bits and pieces. It’s one of the reasons the NFL has to be so frustrating. I can’t imagine trying to come to conclusions on such a small sample size.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Depends On Which Experts As Well
Comments from Collinsworth, Mayock or Jaworski I’m going to accept pretty much at face value because those guys do the stats and watch the film. Sal Paolantonio’s almost in that class as well, I suppose…not quite. Guys like John Clayton, I’m going to take their info with a grain of salt because while they might offer some very good insight or info, they pepper it frequently with personal biases or faulty judgment or logical fallacies (Clayton’s coverage of the Favre situation was a perfect example of how quickly he throws objective analysis out the window when he’s emotionally invested in a story). Guys like the jokers on ESPN’s NFL coverage I’m not even going to bother to watch because you can tell they don’t do much (often any) research at all and they’re only there because they’re ex-players who like to run their mouths and have some purpose in their lives. Then there’s the Shannon Sharpe caliber “expert” who as far as I can tell hasn’t issued an intelligible comment the entire time he’s been on television :)
I do agree that the NFL requires context more than most other sports, mainly because of the number of people on the field during any play (22…which exceeds any of the other major pro sports except soccer) and the complexity of their interactions. But then, like I said, even though I watch a lot of football I don’t really have access to or time for all of the game tape you’d have to watch to make a completely informed opinion…I’ve got the stats. Of course, from what I can see a lot of guys who cover football for a living don’t seem to find much time for watching the tape or looking at the numbers either, so I’ve usually got faith in my opinions when I’ve done my homework. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tom Jackson
is the exception. That guy spends hours and HOURS in the film room. He does his homework, so do most of the color commentators (though Randy Cross obviously is watching porn instead. Man I hate that guy).
Clayton is out there so much it’s only natural that he would have some biases, but he’s far better than Mortensen, who really needs to not try and break stories so hard.
Jaws just kills me. I was watching last night and trying to explain to the wife the vast gap between Tirico’s right and left in terms of homework. Jaworski LOVES what he does and spends so much time researching it and Kornheiser just goes out there and basically jerks off for three hours.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kornheiser
I can’t watch MNF because the sound of his voice makes me want to punch my TV. And he’s such an unfunny, preachy moron…I don’t think he’s offered a relevant or interesting point since he took that job.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question
does ANYTHING in football actually make you happy? Is anything pleasing to you? I mean, I can’t blame you. One of the reasons I started really getting into college football lately was because of how annoying and frustrating the pro football game, atmosphere, and coverage is.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coverage Just Bugs Me Lately
I’m happy when Harlan and/or Gannon are doing the Chiefs games…Harlan was a personal favorite. Or even Jayice Pearson. But ESPN’s coverage (and not just of the NFL but of a lot of sports) is a pet peeve these days. Actually it seems to be a problem with a lot of networks…they water down the booth and studio with all of these faces and only one or two guys on each channel has anything useful to say. I guess I’ve just gotten a little more impatient with celebrities clogging the booth and on Sundays I just want to watch the game and be talked to by commentators who know what they’re saying and have something useful to add.
Hopefully it’s a short-term annoyance. But there is just something about Kornheiser, personally, that gets on my last nerve…he’s like listening to a shallow teenage girl, only one with a really nasal and annoying voice.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again
what actually brings you joy from football?
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Game Itself
I like when plays are executed well, and when you can watch the strategy unfold. I’m not a Patriots fan by any stretch, but I’ll admit that I enjoyed watching them execute their offense last season (in much the same way that I used to love watching Manchester United execute their offense when I lived in England, even though I was a Liverpool fan). Part of my annoyance this year is just in how bad the Chiefs are in almost all facets of the game and how utterly unprepared they look every week. I’m not usually this negative regarding football, but it’s been building quite a bit the last two or three years in regards to the Chiefs. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Good Tackling
I love good hits…and good defensive play in general. That’s why I was optimistic about Herm at first when he was hired, because I enjoy good defensive football teams.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I imagine
That’s the rugby coming out in you?
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
Since I can’t play rugby any more (neck injury a couple of years ago) I have to live vicariously through the NFL :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not me
Although I’m about to finish school I still have a year of eligibility left.
6’1" 210…NFL bred safety (although the weight is, you know, proportioned a little differently than say Sean Taylor).
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i still have a chance at pros
after three games in to my school’s intramural flag football season i have 10 td’s and only 3 int’s
Naming my son Brodie Damon
by troy145 on Sep 23, 2008 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's the competition like?
If it’s an SEC school then I’m sold.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I Do Love How ABC Does Their College Football Coverage
Kirk Herbstreit is one of the best commentators ever, in any sport. The guy’s got a good presence in the booth and he’s always got something useful or interesting to add.
And I like Collinsworth a lot as well. The greatest thing EA Sports ever did was add him as the color analyst to Madden 09. :) Although I will say that the new “Inside the NFL” on Showtime probably highlights him just a little too much…the other guys in that studio aren’t bad, but the old crew (Marino and Costas in particular) had their own personalities and it was a useful counter-balance to Collinsworth’s more abrasive qualities. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was best
with Len Dawson. But then, most things are.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
I don’t get 101 The Fox down here in Wichita, but I’ve heard old Len’s pessimism has increased exponentially this season. A friend of mine listened to it last week and said that Dawson’s reached new heights with expressing his contempt verbally on Herm’s “plan” :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
herbstreit is awesome
musberger sucks
Naming my son Brodie Damon
by troy145 on Sep 23, 2008 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks to Sharp Aquos LCD
Nothing makes me wanna punch my TV.
Well, almost nothing.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've Got A Hi-Def Too
So I’m able to control myself because I like my TV. But the MNF crew with Kornheiser has really ruined the Monday night games for me. If they just pruned Kornheiser out of the booth I think it would probably be a pretty good presentation…I think Tirico and Jaws would handle a two-man booth really well. Korny just seems to be there for celebrity appeal.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson
Is definitely the best of that group. Steve Young’s not so bad either. I’m not so sure he enjoys that job that much, though, since he seems to spend most of his time being shocked at the ridiculous and uninformed comments the other guys make.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Steve Young is a lawyer
the man could make a living doing almost anything. That’s how he’s different from the other guys on that set. He and Jackson tend to starte at each other in disbelief after half of what’s said.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's Also Still Making Money Off The USFL
He gets paid a million per year out of an annuity he signed up for as part of his deferred contract.
The guy’s one of the smartest guys ever to play in the NFL in my opinion :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I Agree That Spread Offenses Are A Factor
I’m just not sure how much of a factor they are and need to go digging around for awhile first.
Actually, if you can name me five highly-touted “system” QBs who were busts in the pros versus five highly-touted “non-system” QBs who made it (all should have played in the same era and should have been drafted before 2006) it would be an useful starting point for me to start digging. I’m just not that familiar with which teams run spreads (or run-and-shoot, or whatever variations) versus those that don’t.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thing is
“highly touted” and “system” are subjective terms. If they turn out well, like Carson Palmer, they’re just good. If they suck like Leinart, they’re “system.”
I can tell you that last year some of the best quarterbacks and most highly touted before the draft were Andre Woodson, Brian Brohm, Colt Brennan, and Matt Ryan. The BC scheme isn’t anything fancy from what I understand and saw last year. The kid just ran the offense, threw down field, no trickery.
By comparison, I can tell you that each spread offense has about a dozen “gadget” plays in their belt. The way it spreads the defense out lets the offenses have time to execute them.
Also, a nice anecdote on how succesful the spread is? Both Boise State and West Virginia use the spread. Both beat Oklahoma in BCS games. Conversely, the biggest reason Missouri runs into trouble against OU? Because they run spread and not the spread-option, which basically means that OU’s big huge, scary D-Lineman and fast defensive backs are NFL caliber enough to get into passing lanes and create mayhem.
Interestingly enough, this coming draft class is going to be the biggest test for spread quarterbacks. Harrell, Daniel, Tebow, all top QBs, all spread quarterbacks.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want a great outlier to the system trend?
Aaron Rodgers. Jeff Tedford-product out of Cal. So there you go.
Of course, here are the rest of Jeff’s NFL QBS.
Trent Dilfer
Akili Smith
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Kyle Boller.
So there’s that.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other "Systems"
Florida under Spurrier, Houston during the run-and-shoot era, Hawaii under June Jones
Now it’s just a matter of figuring out a control group (non-system QBs) to compare the system guys to. Figure Peyton, Palmer, Favre…to start. Although Favre’s a bit of an anomaly because his numbers in college were actually not all that good (biggest NFL success story I could find, in fact).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eli
another good one. Trent. Roethelisburger. McNabb.
Vince Young was a modified spread QB, btw.
Uh, anybody else?
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eli
For control group or non? His performance in the NFL, by the way, has largely followed his performance from college. He was inconsistent there too…hasn’t changed.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yet
his shiny ring looks so good. I like Eli. I’ll admit it. He makes good throws and bad throws, but he makes more good ones than bad ones and he’s becoming more of a leader. But I actually suggested him as a control group, along with trent, ben, and mcnabb. because that way you have good and bad quarterbacks in there.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Used To Like Him
Until he fucked my fantasy team on Romo’s bye week last year by throwing for 59 yards against the Dolphins.
I couldn’t cut him fast enough on Monday.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Recommendations
That’ll keep me busy over the weekend.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alex Smith
It’s ironic to find Crawford petitioning for a spread quarterback, given his feelings on the first modern spread NFL pick: Alex Smith.
I’ve never really expressed strong feelings on Alex Smith’s ability. The primary reason I’ve said the Chiefs don’t want him is because he had major shoulder problems last year and he’s out for the year with shoulder issues this season. It’s durability I’ve got issues with in Smith’s case, not ability.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I thought I’d remembered you being more against his propensity. Fair enough. But there’s more than injury to blame for him being considered a bust.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mainly Because Of Injury
He hasn’t shown a lot in the way of performance, but I’m willing to attribute at least part of that his head coach being an incompetent jackass who never deserved that gig in the first place. He did show some potential under Norv Turner, though, so he might have been able to make the leap. But the odds are stacking up against him now as the arm problems mount, so I just don’t see him as a good option for QBOTF for us or as a stopgap.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better than Quinn
It seems, according to a quick google search, that the Chiefs have done a bit of homework on Brohm as well.
by Steve.Green on Sep 23, 2008 3:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow
…did I mess that link up….heres’ the real one:
by Steve.Green on Sep 23, 2008 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice
I forgot about that. Thanks for sharing.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More than a bit of Homework
Based on what I read there, it sounds like they wanted him to be “the guy” but they quizzed him like crazy and obviously made the determination that he was not going to work in our system.
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Our System"
I have trouble believing that any QB would work in a Herm Edwards-run system. That revelation makes me like Brohm even more :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
but trading for him as long as Herm is still here just means his progress will be that much more stunted. We’ll dog him because he won’t succeed, and he won’t improve because the system won’t adjust to him. I hate our system, but I don’t want the kid to suffer unnecessarily. Tyler and Damon at least deserve their fate.
Bones. It's not just a noun it's a verb. Not just a nickname, a movement.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 23, 2008 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tyler, Sure...Damon, Not So Much
Thigpen should be happy just to be there because I have doubts as to whether he’s good enough to even make another team’s roster. Huard just does the best he can and rides the bench because Herm doesn’t like playing him, even though he’s better than either of the bums who play ahead of him. I think Huard’s kind of gotten a raw deal. He’s not a good starter by any stretch, but he’s also not a scrub and I don’t think he deserved to get benched for Thigpen.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As For Not Wanting Brohm To Suffer In Herm's "System"
I think that’s about as convincing an argument for getting rid of Herm as has been made. When you’re at the point where you’d rather not bring in a potential QB of the future because you’re sure the coach is just going to screw the kid up, that’s a sign that the coach needs to be replaced ASAP.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone keeps
name dropping Bartel like he was actually signed. When was this official? To my knowledge he was only worked out. Never offered a contract. Did I miss a press release somewhere?
Huard got the short end of the stick, no question. I think over the past few weeks its became evident Damon is not “Herm’s guy”…
What’s this bologna about RT not meriting a R1 pick? There are probably just as many 1st round RT’s in the league as there are LT’s. Of which we need one! All this talk about QB’s but I’d rather not keep perpetuating the same problems that got us in this position in the first place. Give whomever we put behind center the proper tools to succeed. There’s a much greater risk drafting a bust by going with a QB in the 1st round than there is w/ an OL. I think our pick should go to either a RT or LB
Losman seems like such a fit, such a natural choice, makes so much sense – that you can almost ensure it won’t happen. ; ^ )
by KansasCityShuffle on Sep 23, 2008 8:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
To my knowledge he was only worked out. Never offered a contract. Did I miss a press release somewhere?
Nope, he was never signed. 3rd and 4th quarterbacks get lost in the shuffle easily.
What’s this bologna about RT not meriting a R1 pick? There are probably just as many 1st round RT’s in the league as there are LT’s.
That is not correct. There are (a lot) more 1st round LTs, but I think most people are talking about not taking a RT in the top five of the draft. I’d be all about a RT later in the first round.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 23, 2008 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh Thank God
And here I thought the Chiefs had gone insane and signed a former Div II QB…a terrible former Division II QB at that.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 8:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should remind you
that J.T. O’Sullivan is a former D-II QB from a quaint little college town located just west of Sacramento. A little place called UC Davis. (can you guys tell that it’s my alma mater?)
by Sudden on Sep 23, 2008 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And It Only Took Him Until He Was 29
to land a starting gig :)
Props to O’Sullivan (who has actually started for my fantasy team) but if you look up Bartel’s numbers from college, I wasn’t exaggerating when I said he stunk. As in he completed 50% of his passes and apparently barely played. A guy’s got a chance if he’s a superstar at that level…but not when he’s terrible.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 23, 2008 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
UC
I understand the Chiefs are a little more desperate now than they were a few weeks ago, but they knew then that Huard and Thigpen were playing poorly,and that if Croyle went down ,so did our hopes for being competitive.
I really think that this season is blown. It would be nice to have a Brohm come in and earn his stripes, but they could have had Chris Simms signed and he would definitely be starting this weekend. For a team that has NO room to be picky, they sure do make some funny decisions. Simms would have been a minor fix for this season at the very least. Anyway, I really liked your idea about going after Losman in the offseason, then draft a young QB (but don’t reach, stay the course), and keep Croyle as a backup. If Cullen Harper or Painter is sitting there at the top of the second round we go with someone like them. A top 5 pick is expensive, but the potential to turn around a franchise is huge. Jake Long is really helping the Dolphins line this year and they were terrible last year. Oher would be good for a team with such a bad line and if we have to move Albert and pay a lot of cash to our offensive line, so be it. A franchise quarterback may be there that we like or a defensive end that we need. For us to be sitting on 19 million of cap space right now, and knowing that more vets will be going after this year, we would be in good position for this pick. I really like Brohm too, and I think your trade idea would appeal to Ted Thompson, I think I am just afraid of what we may miss next year. If a young talented team like the Packers ended up with our #1 pick and took Oher then I think I might be sick!
by TheQ on Sep 24, 2008 12:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just To Be Clear
I’m not advocating trading for Brohm because I think he can come in and start this year. I agree with you that it’s a lost season, and as I said there isn’t a QB around who could pull it out. I’m advocating this trade because I think Brohm’s a legitimate prospect to be a franchise QB. His college career was nothing short of stellar. His immediate family has two members who were successful quarterbacks (which I think is a factor). I honestly believe that Brohm is the answer at QB for us.
But based on the comments from the Packers blog and Primetime regarding Ted Thompson’s trade tendencies and draft history and Brohm’s likely unavailability, it’s probably a moot point anyway.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 7:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
QB Problem
We have a few options to restore the Chiefs to prominence — all of which include Clark Hunt firing Carl and Herm at the end of the season or hopefully — before:
1. Draft Michael Oher or the tackle from Alabama with the 1 pick after going 0-16. We then put Albert at RT, sign Michael Vick (the guy has spent two years in jail for killing dogs, which is terrible, but its not like he’s Pacman who has caused a human to be paralyzed — he deserves another chance) and hire Bill Cowher. When we hire Cowher, we allow him to make any personnel decisions he wants. He deserves these choices and he should be able to choose the GM.
2. Immediately trade for Brian Brohm, who was rated as a top 3 draft prospect in 2007 and clearly has some tools. We let him learn the system and insert him in 2-3 weeks and develop him. This way, we have Brohm or Croyle (who I think is garbage) who we can develop and hopefully one will become a top 15 QB. I also think in this situation we go for Cowher, Lane Kiffin, or even a good college coach like Pete Carroll or Urban Meyer. There is NO WAY that any of these coaches will be as bad as Herm.
A few more points on Carl and Herm. Who was the last good player Carl brought in as a free agent? I honestly cannot remember. I think that Vermeil was responsible for bringing Priest and Green in. As for Herm, he is so TERRIBLE that I might actually not watch a Chiefs game for the first time in my life. It’s so painful. Run Run Pass. Run Run Interception. Ive watched every game since I was 10 (Im 25). How are you going to keep Larry Johnson happy when he scores his 2nd TD on Sunday and Herm doesnt challenge the play? It was CLEAR that Herm was thinking about it but stubborn Herm just sat there staring at nothing. I despise Herm. I live in New York and every Jets fan told me from the beginning that he is garbage and the only reason the Jets won with him was because Parcells players were still here. Last weekend – LJ was clearly in and his coach didn’t do a thing about it. He also has a decent QB in Huard who he clearly disregards. Last time I checked, you “play to win” and the only QB on our roster who has ever won a game is Damon Huard. If the Chiefs don’t fire Herm after this season I WILL not be a Chiefs fan anymore. I am a very loyal fan and I don’t mind losing seasons. But to keep Herm as coach would prove to me that the Chiefs are putting something above their fans and the fans are the only reason any of these guys are millionaires.
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 9:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Pulling my best UC
Draft Michael Oher or the tackle from Alabama with the 1 pick after going 0-16. We then put Albert at RT, sign Michael Vick…
Would cripple us, in my opinion. Albert was drafted as a LT. We have a LT. He is working out fine. We have other needs that can/need to be addressed instead of upgrading at a position we appear to be content with. Vick…I don’t really know what else to say. This would possibly be one of the worst signings in NFL history. The guy wasn’t even a good NFL quarterback so why would we take him when he’s had 2 years off of football?
When we hire Cowher, we allow him to make any personnel decisions he wants.
Rarely does having one man run both positions work.
Who was the last good player Carl brought in as a free agent? I honestly cannot remember. I think that Vermeil was responsible for bringing Priest and Green in.
Carl is responsible for all the free agents we have brought in. You can’t pick a couple good ones and attribute it to Vermeil instead. He does the personnel. It’s his job so it’s on him. Good or bad.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 11:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The point is we need two good Tackles on this team because our C and RG are subpar. If you want Albert at LT and Oher at RT, so be it.
I say we hire Cowher as coach and let him choose the GM – not be the GM. Cowher is obviously a smart guy and I think his input on that hiring is very important.
You give me no names. I know for a fact that Vermeil got Trent Green here when he was hired and with Priest Im fairly sure it was Vermeil. Carl Peterson has not brought in a decent player since Andre Rison.
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chain of Command
The GM is the head coach’s superior…it’s his responsibility to insure that the head coach is doing his job properly. You cannot have the head coach pick his boss…that would essentially be the same as having the guy do both jobs. What if Cowher and the GM disagree? Whose opinion would win out? Under your scenario it would be Cowher’s, and what quality of GM is going to want to walk into a situation like that, where his subordinate dictates his decisions?
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand, but you don’t you think Cowher would be different from the normal head coach. You would prefer Clark Hunt just choose the GM he thinks fits best and then hope Cowher likes him? My point is that in order to make a huge splash like getting Cowher to coach this joke of a team, we need to do something like what the Seahawks did with Holmgren. Kansas City is no longer a top 10 job in the NFL. If you want to get stuck with another Herm then go about it in typical fashion but I think cleaning house and letting Cowher choose the personal below and above him would be most beneficial.
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bill Cowher
Is no different than any other head coach in that he likes to have what he perceives as the most possible control over the results on the field. That’s why a lot of these guys jump at the opportunity to dictate front office decisions and wear the GM/Head coach hats at the same time…because they think it allows them to control their own destiny. And since both are full-time jobs it usually means that the quality of work suffers in both areas because there’s not enough hours in the day to do both jobs and be competitive in today’s NFL. Holmgren found this out…he was struggling in Seattle until management finally stripped him of his GM powers and he went back to winning division titles. Shanahan’s a great coach, but his drafting has often been questionable and he hasn’t fielded a dominant team since he took on both roles.
I agree that Cowher would be an excellent coaching hire, but the team needs to hire a new GM first and let that guy make the call on who the new coach will be (because the quality of that coaching hire is what the GM will be evaluated on). That’s what he’s supposed to be doing, after all. And any quality GM will spurn a job where he’s not given that authority.
Kansas City is no longer a top 10 job in the NFL.
I don’t think that’s the case. We’ve got a solid fanbase and a community that will support the team. Players seem to like living and playing here. The owner gives GMs and coaches time to implement their plans and isn’t quick to fire people. The problem has been they don’t like dealing with Carl Peterson, or Peterson simply doesn’t do a good job of bringing in quality players. Change the GM and there’s a good chance that the negatives about the franchise disappear too.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"They" Being The Free Agents We Want Here
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know the point is we need two good tackles
But on the flip side we would be going about it the wrong way by drafting a LT and moving him to right, a position that doesn’t generally warrant a top 5 selection. We would be overpaying.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If He's Best Player Available When We're Selecting
I’m fine with it.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Denial
Carl is responsible for all the free agents we have brought in. You can’t pick a couple good ones and attribute it to Vermeil instead. He does the personnel. It’s his job so it’s on him. Good or bad.
You know, that’s the sticking point that frustrates me more than any other in these arguments about who is or isn’t responsible for the current situation…cherry-picking free agent signings/draft picks/coaching hires and attributing blame for the bad choices to wherever it seems to do the least damage. The Chiefs, like every other franchise in the NFL, are a hierarchical organization. The GM is the one responsible for all of the decisions that go on, because he’s the one who hired the people underneath him (especially in Peterson’s case, since he’s been there for 19 years). If Carl Peterson is hiring people who make bad decisions and he lets them follow through on those decisions, then Carl Peterson is responsible for the results because it’s his job to evaluate those decisions before they get made.
Thanks for the backing on that, Primetime.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfair
I’ve noticed that there is a lot of Carl bashing that goes on here that’s unfair. The good players we’ve brought in get attributed to Vermeil or Marty. The bad players go to Carl.
He deserves the credit and the blame in those situations.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll Agree That Some Carl-Bashing Is Unfair
But honestly, I think he’s gotten more passes than unfair rips over his career. The guy has gone through four head coaches, he’s built a team this year that may be the worst in Chiefs history, his teams haven’t won a playoff game in 14 years and he’s gotten to keep his job. Taking that into account I’d posit that Carl Peterson’s treatment by the front office and the fans has been more than fair.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree to a certain extent but Carl doesn’t make some of the decisions Herm does that hurt our team on gameday.
You simply cannot deny that if Herm goes that Carl needs to go or that if Carl goes Herm goes. Both are responsible for this mess. I count 11 players that deserve to start in the NFL: LJ, Albert, Waters, Gonzalez, Bowe, Hali, Dorsey, DJ, Flowers, Pollard, Colquitt
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Agree That Both Are Responsible
I just think Carl Peterson should go first…and then the new GM should get to determine what to do with Herm.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And He Should Get To Decide Who To Hire In Herm's Place
Because if we bring a new guy in I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that Herm avoids getting fired.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what if Cowher is interested in the Chiefs and Carl doesnt want him? Why not hire Cowher and then a GM that is compatible.
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's An Argument To Get Rid Of Carl If I Ever Heard One
The solution is that you hire the new GM and let him decide if he wants to bring Cowher in, then let him try and convince Cowher to come here. If Cowher doesn’t want to come here, then that’s really on Cowher.
GMs are the ones who make or break teams, not head coaches, because GMs are the ones who select the talent and make the decisions and balance the books and sell advertising, and try to bring in the fans. Head coaching is important, don’t get me wrong, but if you hire a good GM then a good head coach will usually follow…whether it’s Bill Cowher or someone else.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fisking...Catch The Fever
I know that Matt hates it, but blockquoting excerpts from someone’s comment is such an effective way to address that person’s argument point by point. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me ask you guys this:
Do you think we have a shot at Cowher? Honestly?
Because I think we do but I think Cowher is going to want to make some major changes. I don’t think he will go to Cleveland bc that is selling the Steelers fans out.
I also would love to bring Schottenheimer back.
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 11:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Cowher just bought a house in Cleveland
He wants full control of the organization.
The rumor (stress the word rumor) is that he wants to go to Cleveland and have full control which is entirely possible considering the team’s current state and their expectations.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Think He's Cleveland-Bound
That situation is so desperate that I think they will give him full control. And I think they’ll find that the results will not be as rosy as they’d hoped for.
As for Schottenheimer, I wouldn’t be unhappy if he came back but he’s indicated that he’s done with coaching and has no interest in taking another job. He’s not a young man anymore, after all.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
With the state the Chiefs currently are in, you wouldnt offer him full control? I would. He’s proven.
I really think we have the nod over Cleveland because we aren’t the Steelers rivals. He will be committing a huge crime if he goes to Cleveland.
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 11:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Because it almost never works out. Holmgren tried it in Seattle and it worked out terribly. He was not a good head coach when he also had to be GM. Then Seattle’s ownership stripped him of GM duties and suddenly his teams started wrecking people (and a few years later he was back in the Super Bowl). Shanahan’s a brilliant coach, but since he took over GM responsibilities he hasn’t gotten close to a Super Bowl again. Don Shula was a Hall of Fame coach, but once he took over as GM in Miami from Bobby Beathard his teams were terrible…they would have gone straight in the crapper if Dan Marino hadn’t been bailing them out (no run game, terrible defense almost every single year).
The last guy I can think of who did both jobs well was Vince Lombardi, and that was in an era where being a head coach wasn’t a 16-20 hour day 7 days a week. I just don’t think it’s possible for anyone to do both jobs anymore and be good at them. So no, if I were the owner of a team I’d never give any coach total control over the decision-making. I’d hire a good GM, let him pick the head coach and staff the front office, then hold the GM responsible for the results.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if you got Cowher to agree to the GM? Someone he could work with on personnel decisions while still doing all the difficult day to day GM duties? I understand your argument but on a year to year basis I would much rather be stuck with Holmgren, Shanahan or Shula than a new GM and a new coach. If it didnt work out with Cowher as everything, then he could succomb power like Holmgren did rather than us having to start all over.
I think its pretty clear that Cowher is the best coach available, a la Vermeil in 01.
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 1:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Same Situation Happened With Shanahan
Rick Sundquist was the “GM In Name Only”. Eventually he and Shanahan clashed, and out he went. We’ll see how that works out, but I’ve a feeling that Denver’s problems with defense are going to be the Broncos’ fatal flaw…because I’m not all that sure that Shanahan knows what he’s doing in evaluating defensive players.
I think its pretty clear that Cowher is the best coach available, a la Vermeil in 01.
As many people on this blog will remind you, Vermeil may have been best coach available but that didn’t get us a whole lot since he never won a playoff game (and missed the playoffs most years). A quality head coach is no guarantee of success if your front office is a problem, and nothing in Cowher’s resume indicates to me that he’d be an outstanding general manager (especially if he held that job in addition to being head coach).
I understand your argument but on a year to year basis I would much rather be stuck with Holmgren, Shanahan or Shula than a new GM and a new coach.
Regarding turnover with GMs, it’s my own personal opinion that in today’s NFL the life expectancy of a average GM should be five years, minimum. That gives the guy time to plan, to staff his office, to draft what he wants, to bring in the free agents and put together the coaching staff he wants…by five years you’ve got a pretty good idea of what that guy’s about and how good or bad he his. After that five year period, he should be replaced once he’s three years removed from his last playoff win, which in Peterson’s case would have put the time for his removal around 1997 or 1998 (and I don’t think it’s a tough case to argue that he hasn’t been a particularly good GM in the years since ‘98). A team that gives that much time to a general manager isn’t one that’s going to develop a reputation for an itchy trigger finger…merely one that holds its hires accountable for their performance.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All good points, but as a Chiefs fan from 01-05, I loved football. I loved watching them. The defense killed me but I still loved getting up for games and being in the playoff picture every year. I loved it even more when Schottenheimer was here and we could make the Super Bowl. I dont need to win it all, I would love to win it all but I just want a competitive team on a year to year basis and I think thats what Cowher would bring to Kansas City. I think right night we just flat out have BAD coaches and a BAD gm. I actually dont mind our players. I think we have the talent to be a 8-8 team right now. We just don’t utilize any of the players correctly.
As for the GM thing, you are completely correct, I just think that Denver and Seattle are and have been doing pretty well the past 8 years or so. They never are crap crap teams.
I totally see that most KC diehard fans want to go the GM route I just feel as though Cowher will never have a team worse than 7-9. What does 7-9 mean? It means until about week 13, you think you can make the playoffs and in the NFL, thats all thats important. The Giants last year and Steelers a few years back won it all as 6 seeds and thats all I want – is a chance to make the playoffs every year.
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Denver and Seattle
Seattle started doing well after Holmgren gave up GM responsibilities in 2002. All of their NFC West division titles under Holmgren, plus their Super Bowl appearance, came after he focused only on coaching. Denver’s success under Shanahan came before he started playing GM (two Super Bowl titles)…since then they’ve won one playoff game.
They never are crap crap teams.
No, but they are/were mediocre and the thing is that their coaches aren’t mediocre, they’re actually great coaches, so they definitely underperformed and that underperformance coincided with their coaches taking on two full-time jobs in the organization. Holmgren quit the GM job and in two years the Seahawks were dominant again. I doubt that’s a coincidence.
I totally see that most KC diehard fans want to go the GM route I just feel as though Cowher will never have a team worse than 7-9. What does 7-9 mean?
It means your team is mediocre and uncompetitive. I think Chiefs fans deserve better than that.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
UCrawford
What do you propose then? Give me your dream scenario for 2009. I mean who do you want as GM, who do you want as coach, where do you want us to go with the QB situation, who do you want to draft, do you want to spend money on free agents or not?
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Suggestions
For GM, I haven’t got a name for you because I’m not familiar with who’s out there and who’s available (although it’s probably a worthwhile column to write on so I’ll dig a little bit and see if I can come up with a name). If I were the GM (which I’m not), my wish list would probably be along the lines of Cowher (if he’s interested in a job where he’s just head coach), Lane Kiffin, Jim Harbaugh at Stanford, Jason Garrett at Dallas (although he’s probably not leaving as he’s the heir apparent to Phillips), or even Chan Gailey (who I think is being handcuffed right now by Edwards) although Gailey would not be a high priority. I doubt Cowher’s going to be available, so Kiffin would be my next target…he’s done well considering the situation in Oakland.
For QB, I expressed my thoughts on that in this article…that was kind of the point :) For free agents, I stated who I thought we should go after in a post last week.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tell me more
About Ted Rick Sundquist :)
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's That Damned Name Thing Again
Sundquist, Sundberg…what the fuck ever. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
You don’t misspell very often so I gotta take what I can get.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Wasn't A Misspelling
I just keep mixing together the names of Jim Sundberg, Rick Sutcliffe and Ted Sundquist for some reason. It’s not the first time, not a clue why I keep doing it.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
What team do you think is in the best situation right now in the NFL?
by CBaller13 on Sep 24, 2008 3:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Green Bay
Young, good starting QB, good QB potential on the bench. Those are the most important attributes…overall young/good team with a solid starting QB.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Great GM as well. Ted Thompson is a hell of a GM. I was half hoping the Packers would be stupid enough to run him out of town after the Favre idiocy. No such luck, so I doubt he’s available to be our GM.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Denver
Denver is setting itself up really well. They’ve got some work to do on defense but when you’ve got a QB like Cutler and a WR like Marshall in addition to a perennially solid running game you’re tough to beat.
But Shanahan has tanked on his last few defensive drafts.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess after Rodgers goes down
I’m still surprised to see Flynn take the field. If Rodgers indeed has a seperated shoulder and is out for several weeks it obviously will make Brohm more expensive. It just really hit me he’s there #3 and perhaps they’re smart by not rushing his development, but we’re dying for a franchise QB and if he’s expendable to Green Bay we should start making calls. I would readily take him over any drafted QB next year and all our picks could thus be used on the O Line and Defense
by KansasCityShuffle on Sep 28, 2008 7:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
