ESPN beat writer's mock draft

[Bortnem]

Here is a link to the ESPN beat writer mock draft that went on today. How it worked was the beat writers for each team were the ones making the picks and trades. Our "great" (added sarcasm) beat writer Adam Teicher took Ra'Shede Hageman with the 23rd pick.

I am really hoping this scenario does not happen in real life because all the player I would be fine with the Chiefs taking were gone, and no one wanted to give a decent trade offer to move up.

What do you all think?

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...ion-mock-draft

[brdempsey69]

Regardless, the previous 17 QBs have nothing to do with the next QB drafted. Just like if you throw heads 17 times in a row, you're still just as likely to get a tails the next toss.

I've heard that one before, too. I've heard them all. Like I said, I'll believe it when see it, as far as KC successfully drafting a QB.

[Seek]

I'd be happy with a QB at #23. Our backup QB's frighten the heck outta me.

Our start Guard, starting Free Safety and Depth at Oline and DE bother me a whole lot more than our Back up QB's. I would not be pleased at all taking a QB with the 23rd.

I have no problems throwing darts at Qb's in later rounds and hoping one is the next Tom Brady, but unless that QB is valued as the best player available that QB should be a starter next year and not looked at as a back up.

[Bortnem]

I've heard that one before, too. I've heard them all. Like I said, I'll believe it when see it, as far as KC successfully drafting a QB.

You've heard it before because it is pure logic...what some old GMs have done has nothing to do with what a new GM will do...the fact that we havent drafted a successful QB in the past is not a prediction of how a new QB drafted will do for the Chiefs.

I believe the Red Sox had that same dumb superstition and look at that...they won the world series so its not impossible.

I mean does this mean that since we havent won a playoff game since 1993 that a team 20 years later is somehow "cursed" by the struggles of previous teams with none of the same players? Both this and the poor QB drafting is an anomaly but has no bearing on the future.

[brdempsey69]

You've heard it before because it is pure logic...what some old GMs have done has nothing to do with what a new GM will do...the fact that we havent drafted a successful QB in the past is not a prediction of how a new QB drafted will do for the Chiefs.

I believe the Red Sox had that same dumb superstition and look at that...they won the world series so its not impossible.

I mean does this mean that since we havent won a playoff game since 1993 that a team 20 years later is somehow "cursed" by the struggles of previous teams with none of the same players? Both this and the poor QB drafting is an anomaly but has no bearing on the future.

I didn't say it was illogical. I just stated what the results have been & those results speak volumes.

One can use whatever analogy they want to, as has been done before, but the result is still the same until proven otherwise.

And the Chiefs don't need to waste a pick on a QB this year. They have a solid starter, a fair backup, and a young developing QBOTF. If it ain't broken, then don't try to fix it. They need other positions with those picks all across the board.

[Seek]

You've heard it before because it is pure logic...what some old GMs have done has nothing to do with what a new GM will do...the fact that we havent drafted a successful QB in the past is not a prediction of how a new QB drafted will do for the Chiefs.

I believe the Red Sox had that same dumb superstition and look at that...they won the world series so its not impossible.

I mean does this mean that since we havent won a playoff game since 1993 that a team 20 years later is somehow "cursed" by the struggles of previous teams with none of the same players? Both this and the poor QB drafting is an anomaly but has no bearing on the future.

I always love it when people throw up history, Like We are better than you because we won 6 superbowls. That does not make your team good today.

Fact of the point is that the draft status of QB's in the past failed because of the player picked. I don't recall ever picking a QB that we considered to be a Pro QB. Every Team has had failures, drafting QB's. Look at our division alone. Oakland recently has failed miserably with QB's, San Diego with Ryan Leaf and then letting Drew Breeze go and then drafting Eli Manning and trading him. Remember Eli refusing to play for San Diego because they were so horrible. Denver hasn't really landed one either. I guess Jay Cutler, but really????

Point is, It is hard to draft a starting QB regardless of team history.

[Bortnem]

I always love it when people throw up history, Like We are better than you because we won 6 superbowls. That does not make your team good today.

Fact of the point is that the draft status of QB's in the past failed because of the player picked. I don't recall ever picking a QB that we considered to be a Pro QB. Every Team has had failures, drafting QB's. Look at our division alone. Oakland recently has failed miserably with QB's, San Diego with Ryan Leaf and then letting Drew Breeze go and then drafting Eli Manning and trading him. Remember Eli refusing to play for San Diego because they were so horrible. Denver hasn't really landed one either. I guess Jay Cutler, but really????

Point is, It is hard to draft a starting QB regardless of team history.

Completely agree

I didn't say it was illogical. I just stated what the results have been & those results speak volumes.

One can use whatever analogy they want to, as has been done before, but the result is still the same until proven otherwise.

And the Chiefs don't need to waste a pick on a QB this year. They have a solid starter, a fair backup, and a young developing QBOTF. If it ain't broken, then don't try to fix it. They need other positions with those picks all across the board.

I do agree with not drafting a QB now unless someone falls way deep in the draft. I was just saying that previous picks by previous regimes have no bearing on future picks. With that said, I would like us to take BPA and address other areas of this team.

[brdempsey69]

I do agree with not drafting a QB now unless someone falls way deep in the draft. I was just saying that previous picks by previous regimes have no bearing on future picks. With that said, I would like us to take BPA and address other areas of this team.

You are 100% correct in your assessment that what's been done by previous regimes having no bearing on what this current regime does.

My point is that when your track record is that bad when it comes to drafting QB's ( 0 for 17 since 1970 ), regardless of the regime in place then you can't help but wonder "what the hell is going on" & you have to keep an open mind to acquiring QB's by other avenues of trade, FA, and UDFA -- which is precisely what the Chiefs did last year & thus far, it looks like it has worked for them.

If they can draft a good QB (perhaps next year) then great. I'd love nothing more than for the Chiefs to draft the next Joe Montana.