I completely agree. But his tools don't warrant the gamble on THIS athlete's personality, attitude, and behavior. The tools are there. I don't deny that. He's not as polished as I'd like from a #1 overall, franchise shouldering QB, but he definitely has the tools... but so do the other top 2 or 3 QBs in this draft class. The cost/benefit ratio doesn't warrant taking Smith #1 overall (or ANY QB in this class for that matter). If they could trade down and take him in the middle of the first, then he'd be a more palatable choice.
Looking at the total package, in my OWN opinion, Smith is NOT the QB prospect that is the least-risk option. Therefor, if the Chiefs can get the QB that DOES represent the least-risk but also is a comparable commodity in the mid-to-late first or 2nd, then THAT is where the Chiefs' QB selection should be targeted.
I can't stress this enough. There is a value at which EVERY athlete should be considered. If we were having this conversation on day 2 of the draft and Geno Smith was still on the board, I'd be yelling, kicking, and SCREAMING for the front office to take him. As I mentioned a few posts ago, basic economic principles need to be applied to the draft and the offseason as a whole. You can't just say "hey, he fills a need and is the best option at his position this year, so let's take him." That's why you NEVER see OGs taken in the top 5... EVER. They don't represent the greatest value at that pick... a comparable commodity could be had for MUCH cheaper... and that's what we have with this year's QB class.
Is Smith the best QB in this draft class? Arguably, yes. But does the difference between him and the guy who's available late in the first warrant paying such a high premium as the #1 pick? I say no.