PDA

View Full Version : Pat White?



Codac
02-25-2009, 03:48 PM
I haven't really thought about drafting him, but I saw it on an article and thought I'd get everyone else's opinion. If the Chiefs end up keeping the Spread type of offense they had at the end of the season they definately might have to get him. But I don't think they will keep the spread. Thoughts?

dbolan
02-25-2009, 03:54 PM
They will not go for Pat White....Spread or no Spread.

This is another one of those deals when a guy has a great combine day and all of the sudden he arouses curiosity a bit more.

Pass on Pat White, period.

Codac
02-25-2009, 03:57 PM
They will not go for Pat White....Spread or no Spread.

This is another one of those deals when a guy has a great combine day and all of the sudden he arouses curiosity a bit more.

Pass on Pat White, period.

I didn't even watch the combine. I just remember watching him in a few games during his WV days. He is extremely versatile. That always helps. I can't really say that i'm for or against getting him.

dbolan
02-25-2009, 04:12 PM
10-4

balto
02-25-2009, 05:46 PM
Not a bad idea honestly. He could be that other WR to go along with Bowe. This could open up some trick plays with him taking wild cat snaps and tosses down field after thiggy throws to him on the side line.

I would rather NOT draft him, but I agree it could work /shrug

Coach
02-25-2009, 08:16 PM
He is projected as a 3rd rounder the last time I saw. It will be hard for the Chiefs to ignore their other needs with the talent that will still be on the board at the TOP of the board in the 3rd.

But if he is sitting there at the top of the 4th(doubtful), then I think the Chiefs should definitely take him. He can provide depth for them at QB, WR, RB, and KR. He could be an electric player if used in the right ways. Slot receiver, wildcat QB, backup QB, PR/KR. That kind of versatility could go a long way on a team with this many holes.

The biggest strike against him in my opinion is his size. He is 6'1" 192 lbs. That's the same height and 15 pounds lighter than Jeff Garcia. 14 pounds lighter than Brodie Croyle. If he takes a few big hits at QB(likely in KC), they will be peeling him off of the turf.

A good comparison is Antwan Randel El. He will not be a marqee QB, but could be a playmaker. He has incredible acceleration.

Codac
02-25-2009, 08:28 PM
He is projected as a 3rd rounder the last time I saw. It will be hard for the Chiefs to ignore their other needs with the talent that will still be on the board at the TOP of the board in the 3rd.

But if he is sitting there at the top of the 4th(doubtful), then I think the Chiefs should definitely take him. He can provide depth for them at QB, WR, RB, and KR. He could be an electric player if used in the right ways. Slot receiver, wildcat QB, backup QB, PR/KR. That kind of versatility could go a long way on a team with this many holes.

The biggest strike against him in my opinion is his size. He is 6'1" 192 lbs. That's the same height and 15 pounds lighter than Jeff Garcia. 14 pounds lighter than Brodie Croyle. If he takes a few big hits at QB(likely in KC), they will be peeling him off of the turf.

A good comparison is Antwan Randel El. He will not be a marqee QB, but could be a playmaker. He has incredible acceleration.

I have only ever seen him listed as 6'0. Haha. In actuallity I think he is 5'11. Either way I didn't want him as a QB. I was thinking Slot as well. Maybe a few reverses, and some returns. I'm not sure how long he will last in the league. He is tiny. Big NFL hits will take their toll on a guy his stature. But then again, another Dante Hall anyone?

honda522
02-26-2009, 12:19 AM
I think they will keep the spread. Why do you think Galiey is around?

It would be cool if you could set him at the WR position, and then he could double as a QB.

Codac
02-26-2009, 03:36 PM
I think they will keep the spread. Why do you think Galiey is around?

It would be cool if you could set him at the WR position, and then he could double as a QB.

They kept him around because you have to have an OC. I have a feeling he won't be doing a whole lot.

jmlamerson
02-26-2009, 04:12 PM
I think they will keep the spread. Why do you think Galiey is around?

It would be cool if you could set him at the WR position, and then he could double as a QB.

Gailey's around because he's a great OC and because his players played hard for him last year (unlike, say, Gunther's defense). He was never a spread guy until our OL forced us into it. I see us moving to a more Pats-style offense (lot of WRs, but not quite a spread) next year, and Gailey's perfect for that.

Pat White is the next Seneca Wallace. Good gadget guy, decent backup, but not a starter. A team with a whole lot fewer holes than us should take him and use him as such.

N TX Dave
02-26-2009, 04:26 PM
Gailey's around because he's a great OC and because his players played hard for him last year (unlike, say, Gunther's defense). He was never a spread guy until our OL forced us into it. I see us moving to a more Pats-style offense (lot of WRs, but not quite a spread) next year, and Gailey's perfect for that.

Pat White is the next Seneca Wallace. Good gadget guy, decent backup, but not a starter. A team with a whole lot fewer holes than us should take him and use him as such.

I agree we need to many other holes filled before we take a flyer on a guy that we may be able to fit it. Lets stop drafting on speculation and get the good soon to be great players.

Coach
02-27-2009, 11:27 PM
A team with a whole lot fewer holes than us should take him and use him as such.

I can see that side of the argument for sure. But the flip side to that coin is that if you think he could provide depth at several positions, he seems like a great addition to a very thin roster. He could provide depth at WR, KR, and QB.

He's probably a 3rd or 4th round pick. If the Chiefs are staring at him in the 4th round and they are deciding between him and another player that will not start, then I think there's a good chance we'd take a flyer on him. But, if the Chiefs see a guy on the board in the 4th that they think can start right away, then they pass.

They also will pass if they have already dealt their 4th rounder to NE for Vrabel. We'll find that out shortly. I'm hoping it was not more than a 5th rounder.

KristofLaw
02-27-2009, 11:33 PM
I can see that side of the argument for sure. But the flip side to that coin is that if you think he could provide depth at several positions, he seems like a great addition to a very thin roster. He could provide depth at WR, KR, and QB.

He's probably a 3rd or 4th round pick. If the Chiefs are staring at him in the 4th round and they are deciding between him and another player that will not start, then I think there's a good chance we'd take a flyer on him. But, if the Chiefs see a guy on the board in the 4th that they think can start right away, then they pass.

They also will pass if they have already dealt their 4th rounder to NE for Vrabel. We'll find that out shortly. I'm hoping it was not more than a 5th rounder.

Sorry Coach, but I don't think our roster is that thin... YOUTHFUL is probably the right term, and I honestly believe Mr. Pioli has the same ideas.. he's evaluated the team and I think he's seen alot of positives.

We've got depth but youth throughout our defence <wouldn't be surprised> if this is where our dollar values are spent.

Chiefster
02-27-2009, 11:37 PM
With Pioli we may start aquiring players that run an offense that make us look a bit more like New England.

Coach
02-27-2009, 11:40 PM
Sorry Coach, but I don't think our roster is that thin... YOUTHFUL is probably the right term, and I honestly believe Mr. Pioli has the same ideas.. he's evaluated the team and I think he's seen alot of positives.

We've got depth but youth throughout our defence <wouldn't be surprised> if this is where our dollar values are spent.

When a team finishes 14-2 you might say a team has a stacked roster. When a team finishes 2-14, it's safe to say the roster is thin. How many people did we send to Hawaii last year?

Bike
02-27-2009, 11:46 PM
When a team finishes 14-2 you might say a team has a stacked roster. When a team finishes 2-14, it's safe to say the roster is thin. How many people did we send to Hawaii last year?
You mean we have players that can surf???

KristofLaw
02-27-2009, 11:46 PM
When a team finishes 14-2 you might say a team has a stacked roster. When a team finishes 2-14, it's safe to say the roster is thin. How many people did we send to Hawaii last year?
So would you agree with the cuts so far?

tornadospotter
02-27-2009, 11:49 PM
You mean we have players that can surf???
:11: No, That why we need to get and develop some!:surfing: :D

Coach
02-28-2009, 12:59 AM
So would you agree with the cuts so far?

I think we've made good cuts so far this off-season. I'm not even sure who would be considered borderline at this point. I especially like the Herm Edwards cut.:yahoo:

Chiefster
02-28-2009, 01:01 AM
I think we've made good cuts so far this off-season. I'm not even sure who would be considered borderline at this point. I especially like the Herm Edwards cut.:yahoo:

Yeah, I was also particularly pleased with the Peterson cut as well.

leaves
02-28-2009, 11:07 AM
With Pioli we may start aquiring players that run an offense that make us look a bit more like New England.

I absolutely agree with you there. I have a feeling were gonna lose the flashy, single player movements and reform a solid team. Every player will have some role, and it may not be exciting, but we should win some games now.