Quote Originally Posted by Three7s View Post
The reason I used Charles' name is because he's the best player on the team.

Fine. Let's use the "best player on the team" analogy. Larry Johnson was the best player on the team. He had all the tools to be one of the great RBs the NFL has ever seen. Not only was he the only weapon the offense had, but he was figuratively unstoppable. Johnson had given no signs previously that he would be the mentally weak, misogynistic, washout thug that the we've come to know. Geno Smith has given us an indication. It may have been an isolated event... but it still happened and is something to consider if we're looking at him as #1 overall. I think that, yes, the K.C. community would turn dramatically on JC if he started acting up... we've already seen it with L.J.

You may not think Geno Smith could be an elite QB in this league, and obviously, many on this forum think the same, but I do. I see it in his arm, his pocket awareness, his accuracy, and his ability to be clutch at big moments. Sure, he didn't win as many games as he would've liked. He could've been better at certain times, but he also had one of the worst defenses in the BCS.

I agree with DMN. Let's wait until the Combine when the coaches and scouts start interviewing him and see what happens. I know I've said this once, but I'll say it again. The NFL isn't the care-bear league. Not every player can act perfect 100% of the time. Almost every professional athlete has done something that they probably aren't proud of. That being said, the NFL is a business. If Geno Smith isn't doing stupid stuff to distract the team, then I could care less as long as he produces.

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.