so anytime anybody is ever wrong about anything are you just going to play the hindsight card?

the pick was ****ing stupid in April, the minute the ****ing pick was anounced it was ****ing stupid thats what this thread is all about.

oh its not just about sanchez either. i said it right in this thread the day of the pick, the pick was stupid and i didnt even want sanchez. this has nothing to do with sanchez, it has to do with the people who we're sucking off pioli the DAY OF the draft and acting like we just won the lottery even though all the signs were there the DAY OF the draft that it was ****ing idiotic

Christ, this team might have been better with Josh ****ing Freeman.

And that's coming from someone who wanted NO PART of drafting him.

BJ Raji would also be a two-down player. And give me a ****ing break, his job would have been largely to swallow up blockers too. Maybe teams shouldn't take a Left Tackle, since their only job is to swallow up pass rushers so QBs and RBs can make plays.


He certainly hasn't proven to be a better alternative. And you're on crack if you think the Jets are on track because of Sanchez. Kellen Clemens led the Jets to a similar ass-raping of the Bucs last week in Sanchez's absence with the same exact formula--play great defense, run the ball down the other team's throat, and don't ask too much of your QB. Mark Sanchez's role = Damon Huard's role in 2006.

Right now, Sanchez holds the ball like a loaf of bread, is even worse at holding on to the ball too long, hasn't proven he can throw a good ball in the conditions, and is struggling with the vanilla playbook he is operating in. Maybe he gets better over time, but right now, I have seen absolutely nothing from him that indicates that he's the answer to anything.

No. If you wanted Sanchez, Raji, or Crabtree instead of Jackson, that's fine. But when people start talking about alternatives to Jackson that fell well past #3, that's using hindsight as an argument.

And you have no ****ing idea if Jackson was a good/bad pick. He's a rookie for christ sake.

If Jackson plays to a very high level next year, while it may never end up being a great pick, it certainly won't be a bad pick.

Who gives a shit about BJ Raji? The topic of the conversation is Tyson Jackson.

JFC. All you do is deflect.


Then you're a ****ing dumbshit, plain and simple.

No one expects Sanchez to be Peyton Manning. But he's clearly capable of handling himself on the NFL field. IMO (and in the opinion of most that wanted him at #3), he shouldn't have seen the field this year: He should have spent at least 8 games on the sidelines, if not the entire 16 games. He's 22 and has a MUCH higher ceiling than Cassel.

If you can't see that Sanchez has all of the tools to become a successful NFL QB, then you're blind.

Which wouldn't be surprising considering your takes around here.

If you can't tell that Jackson should have NEVER been drafted at #3 overall, your Chiefsplanet account should be immediately revoked.

It looks like I was the only smart and rational person in this thread. :D

Yes I do.

It was a ****ing awful pick.

A franchise-alteringly bad pick.

It was a firing offense.

Time will bear this out, but for right now you'll just have to accept the fact that you're a good 2 years behind the curve on all things football related.

I do, however, look forward to your stirring monologue on how invading the Chinese mainland in 1945 would be a grand idea.

KC would have destroyed his career. He's better off where he is.

If you're going to rip on a team for taking Tyson Jackson, you better have a viable alternative. And right now, the majority of alternatives I hear are players who were taken 10-20 picks later. Criticizing a team for reaching, then saying they should have reached for another player instead is ridiculous. Like I said, the only alternatives to Jackson at that draft value were Sanchez, Curry, Crabtree, and Raji. I'm not upset at taking the first two. Don't know how I feel about Crabtree's attitude. The only guy I would have taken, and I've said this from day 1, is Raji.

Sanchez does have all the tools.

Except that he has shown shaky pocket presence, complete carelessness with holding the ball like a loaf of bread, an inability to read defenses, a deep lob ball that floats around in all kinds of different directions in windy conditions, the problem of holding onto the ball too long. If you're clinging to the belief that Sanchez is capable of handling the NFL after struggling in a very, very, very simplified version of an offense, then you're blind too. Like I said, 2009 Sanchez = 2006 Damon Huard.

As of right now, I think Freeman is easily playing like the 2nd best QB in this class. I agree with you on this one. But that would have been a monumental reach.

almost as bad as jackson at 3

I would rather have Jackson than Freeman.

the funny thing is, if we were drafting at 17 we still would have our choice of either

I just don't understand how everything is so obvious but yet so hard to fix? Everybody knew how suckledge our O-line was last year yet we didn't address it in the draft we got FA Goff instead who I think Pioli thought was still going to be good at his age. We had to have a make shift O-line this whole season and I guess they have played better the last two games even though it didn't matter cuz our WRs dropped balls and our QB threw a bunch of INts. The QB gets a break dousn't matter if he sucks or not excuses excuses excuses but he is our guy. It's a bunch of should of would of or could of done to make this team better.


It's hard to say if Tyson Jackson is going to be anything at this point, kind of early in his career I hope so for this teams sake. Was he worth it at that spot I don't think so other than the need for the 34 defense but WTF.