PDA

View Full Version : Sims isn't so bad after all


Chiefnj
12-07-2004, 07:50 AM
Might be a repost, but I just read it.



By John Clayton
ESPN.com

For a three-year period, the hottest commodity in the NFL draft was defensive tackles. Big bodies who could play the "three technique" or the nose were hotter than quarterbacks.


Who could forget 2002 when the Vikings, juggling trade options or the chance to draft defensive tackle Ryan Sims from North Carolina, let the 15-minute decision period pass and had the Chiefs run to the table to select Sims? Four defensive tackles went in the first 15 picks. In 2003, the Jets and Saints traded up in the first round to get Dewayne Robertson and Johnathan Sullivan respectively. Five defensive tackles were among the first 13 picks. Six defensive tackles went in the first round of the 2001 draft.


But what happened to all of those defensive tackles?


“ Defensive tackles have been every bit as tricky to draft as quarterbacks in the first round for years. There are about as many failures taking a defensive tackle high as there are quarterbacks, and maybe more. What happens is teams go off workouts or go off flashes that they see instead of going for players at that position who play every play. ”
— Ozzie Newsome, Ravens general manager


Some of the stories are bleak. The Vikings deactivated defensive tackle Chris Hovan, a first-round pick in the 2000 draft Sunday because seven linemen had jumped ahead of him on the depth chart. He's been replaced by unknown Spencer Johnson. Wendell Bryant, the 12th pick in 2002, has been inactive about half the season for the Cardinals and has just one tackle. In St. Louis, undrafted Brian Howard out of Idaho starts while Damione Lewis and Jimmy Kennedy -- each No. 12 overall picks (Lewis in 2001 and Kennedy in 2003) -- come off the bench.


Perhaps the most embarrassing story involves Saints defensive tackle Johnathan Sullivan. The Saints were so high on him they traded two first-round picks to move to the sixth spot in the 2003 draft to get him. Three weeks ago, they thought he was so worthless that they deactivated him. Considered too lazy and too out of shape, Sullivan responded to the deactivation while eating nachos in front of the Saints locker room in his street clothes. Last week, Sullivan went up to the Georgia Dome press box, stood in the media food line and grabbed two massive hamburgers.


If that wasn't bad enough, he had undrafted, inactive defensive tackle Shaun Smith in line with him. Sullivan received $11.4 million in guarantees so he was untouchable. Jim Haslett will probably deactivate him again this week. Smith, meanwhile, was released, partially because of the Georgia Dome incident. Not only has Sullivan been disappointing his teammates, but he cost one his job.


"Defensive tackles have been every bit as tricky to draft as quarterbacks in the first round for years," Ravens general manager Ozzie Newsome said. "There are about as many failures taking a defensive tackle high as there are quarterbacks, and maybe more. What happens is teams go off workouts or go off flashes that they see instead of going for players at that position who play every play."


No team has has done a better job building their defense in the last few years than the Ravens, and one of the reasons is how they scrutinize defensive tackles. They lean toward the overachiever more than the flash of a 320-pound specimen with great quickness. The Ravens won a Super Bowl with Tony Siragusa and Sam Adams. They were hungry big men, but hungry in a good way. They have changed to a 3-4, but they are getting great mileage out of overachievers Kelly Gregg and Marques Douglas.


"Sometimes you are better off taking guys who will hustle more than just the talent," Newsome said. "You want guys at that position who care for the game."


Defensive tackle is a big-man's position. Some are bigger than the offensive linemen trying to contain them. It's not an easy job. Linemen often go for their knees. The good ones get constant double team coverage. Even the top defensive tackles sometimes get criticized for "taking plays off."


"A lot of times, it's not the best looking guys at the position who do the best," Saints coach Jim Haslett said. "The position doesn't necessarily ask for a pass-rusher. The player has to go in there and disrupt the plays. You want guys with the mental make-up to do that."


Which is why only about two dozen defensive tackles drafted in the first day are starting for the league's 32 teams. Sometimes, defensive tackles taken in the first three rounds of the draft have to go to other teams to appreciate their jobs. Russell Davis accomplished that in a move from Chicago to Arizona, and Darwin Walker did the same in a move from Arizona to Philadelphia.


The Saints had a good one in Grady Jackson, but like a lot of defensive tackles, he was spotty sometimes in his play. Jackson played well, but he fought injuries. Sometimes, his attitude got to Saints management because he kept missing too many practices.


Finally, the Saints gave up on him last year, and now he's in Green Bay where the Packers defense has been solid with him in the lineup and sieve-like without him. To fill his spot, the Saints signed Brian Young, a well-accomplished overachiever known for his hustle and ability to beat out first-round choices with the Rams. St. Louis drafted three first-rounders to beat out Young, but they never did. When a team drafts three first-rounders, though, at the same position, there is no money to give the overachiever a good contract, so Young left for New Orleans.


Meanwhile, the Rams are struggling with their first rounders. And the Saints, barely able to get Sullivan on the field, have patched the position with Howard Green.




What's scary, though, is the future of the defensive tackle position and how long teams are going to have to patch their lines. Though it may take three or four more years, the contracts of these highly selected first-rounders will come due. Some may get cut before the end, particularly those with big salary cap numbers. Others clearly won't be re-signed.


There is already talk in Cleveland that Gerard Warren (No. 3 overall pick in the 2001 draft) may be in trouble next season now that Butch Davis, the coach who drafted him, is gone. After showing some flash in his first season, Warren has been a disappointment. It will be interesting to see what the Eagles do with Corey Simon (No. 6 overall pick in 2000), who's been to a Pro Bowl but isn't considered a consistent run stopper. Simon is a free agent after the season and the likelihood is the Eagles will slap him with the franchise tag.


Drafting defensive tackles in the first rounds has turned into a crap shoot much like quarterbacks, who have a 50 percent success rate dating back into the 1990s. For every success story like Anthony McFarland (No. 15 overall by the Bucs in 1999) there is a Reggie McGrew (No. 24 overall by the 49ers in 1999). The Jaguars built their defense around two success stories at the position -- Marcus Stroud and John Henderson. Still, it took Henderson into his second year to become a force.


The Jets were patient waiting for Dewayne Robertson to have success, and he has found some this year in his second NFL season. Robertson has drawn enough double-team blocks to make Jason Ferguson a lot of money this offseason as a free agent. Ferguson, primarily a nose tackle, has been putting up Pro Bowl numbers this year and Robertson is a big reason why.


Get used to it. Supposed no-names such as Spencer Johnson, Howard Green, Montae Reagor, Mario Fatafehi, Sam Rayburn and others will keep emerging every time a big-name first-round defensive tackle fails. The Golden Era of defensive tackles hasn't lived up to the hype.


The Saints found that out in the Georgia Dome press box last week watching Sullivan stuffing his face instead of stuffing the run.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

stevieray
12-07-2004, 07:54 AM
nachos? NACHOS?

morphius
12-07-2004, 07:55 AM
There is way too much talk about the Saints in the article and they are worse off on D then we are.

Cochise
12-07-2004, 07:56 AM
Some of the stories are bleak. The Vikings deactivated defensive tackle Chris Hovan, a first-round pick in the 2000 draft Sunday because seven linemen had jumped ahead of him on the depth chart.


This is someone I had been hearing had fallen out of favor with Tice. But at the time he was supposed to be a huge pickup in the draft from what I heard. Maybe worth a shot as a free agent?


Sullivan responded to the deactivation while eating nachos in front of the Saints locker room in his street clothes.


Ooops, yikes, ohh la la :cuss: :cuss:

shaneo69
12-07-2004, 08:00 AM
It's a good article, but I don't understand how the best and biggest sports media source (ESPN) allows inaccurate information to be published on their website. His recount of the 2002 Chiefs/Vikings/Sims draft situation is totally inaccurate.

Gaz
12-07-2004, 08:01 AM
Nachos are the root of all evil.

xoxo~
Gaz
Favors a federal ban on cheese covered tortilla chips before it is too late.

Count Zarth
12-07-2004, 08:01 AM
Our run defense is solid. Occasionally Sims gets some pressure.

I guess he will never be the great pass rusher some thought he would be.

I don't think Sims is a bust but he's probably never going to be a great DT.

the Talking Can
12-07-2004, 08:04 AM
Perhaps the most embarrassing story involves Saints defensive tackle Johnathan Sullivan. The Saints were so high on him they traded two first-round picks to move to the sixth spot in the 2003 draft to get him. Three weeks ago, they thought he was so worthless that they deactivated him. Considered too lazy and too out of shape, Sullivan responded to the deactivation while eating nachos in front of the Saints locker room in his street clothes. Last week, Sullivan went up to the Georgia Dome press box, stood in the media food line and grabbed two massive hamburgers.


ROFL

and we complain about Priest, jesus.....I bet Sims enjoys this article, "See! I'm not biggest bust! Woo-hoo!"

Cochise
12-07-2004, 08:05 AM
Our run defense is solid. Occasionally Sims gets some pressure.

I guess he will never be the great pass rusher some thought he would be.

I don't think Sims is a bust but he's probably never going to be a great DT.

He's not a bust but needs some other non-Raiders bags on the line with him before he can be judged IMO

Skip Towne
12-07-2004, 08:07 AM
The Chiefs know as much as anyone about D line busts.

KCTitus
12-07-2004, 08:21 AM
It's all about the nachos baby...

Good to see Sims isnt as bad as some of the others that were drafted around that time.

shaneo69
12-07-2004, 08:31 AM
It's all about the nachos baby...

Good to see Sims isnt as bad as some of the others that were drafted around that time.

Yeah, he may not be as bad as some of the other 1st round DT's that were drafted in '02, but is that really vindication for Peterson? Coming off a 6-10 season, we probably had other positions of need that weren't such a risky position as DT. Instead of looking solely at need, which Peterson has done a lot (see my Carl Peterson draft summaries), we probably should have picked the best player available, no matter the position. From what I remember, Roy Williams and Bryant McKinnie were considered bigger locks at their positions than Sims was. Even though SS and LT weren't the biggest needs, we probably would've gotten a better player.

But then, this is still only Sims' 3rd year; maybe he'll keep getting better. Let's hope so.

KCTitus
12-07-2004, 08:33 AM
Instead of looking solely at need, which Peterson has done a lot (see my Carl Peterson draft summaries), we probably should have picked the best player available, no matter the position.

You're telling Noah about the flood, there, shane...

I've allways been in the 'Best Player Available' camp as far as draft picks are concerned--I just tend not to get to excercised about the picks as others do.

Cochise
12-07-2004, 08:34 AM
Instead of looking solely at need, which Peterson has done a lot (see my Carl Peterson draft summaries), we probably should have picked the best player available, no matter the position.

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Carl always says 'best player available' and gets crucified around here for it. Now here is someone saying he doesn't do it and needs to. Anyone else see the irony here?

ROFL

Chiefnj
12-07-2004, 08:37 AM
Yeah, he may not be as bad as some of the other 1st round DT's that were drafted in '02, but is that really vindication for Peterson? Coming off a 6-10 season, we probably had other positions of need that weren't such a risky position as DT. Instead of looking solely at need, which Peterson has done a lot (see my Carl Peterson draft summaries), we probably should have picked the best player available, no matter the position. From what I remember, Roy Williams and Bryant McKinnie were considered bigger locks at their positions than Sims was. Even though SS and LT weren't the biggest needs, we probably would've gotten a better player.

But then, this is still only Sims' 3rd year; maybe he'll keep getting better. Let's hope so.

Roy Williams wasn't an option. The Cowboys would not have traded down if the Chiefs were going to take Williams.

The Vikings also wanted Sims so I don't necessarily think the pick was a "reach." DT was a huge position of need and I think most "experts" had Sims and Henderson ranked in the top.

Otter
12-07-2004, 08:44 AM
Yeah, he may not be as bad as some of the other 1st round DT's that were drafted in '02, but is that really vindication for Peterson?

Sims was a Vermeil pick if I remember correctly. I never thought he was all that bad and I'm sure if we had a DE who could apply pressure it would improve his play dramaticly.

Hoover
12-07-2004, 08:49 AM
I like Sims. At least he brings some attitude to the team while out on the field. i don't care to see Sims have 10 Sacks, I just want to see him clog the middle. If the Chiefs had a stud DE, I think we would all be talking about the great job Sims is doing.

shaneo69
12-07-2004, 08:50 AM
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Carl always says 'best player available' and gets crucified around here for it. Now here is someone saying he doesn't do it and needs to. Anyone else see the irony here?

ROFL


When the fug has Carl said this? Even if he said it, he sure as hell doesn't practice it.

You think LJ was the best player available in '03, or was he picked because we needed insurance in case Priest was hurt or held out?

You think Junior Siavii was the best player available in '04, or were we still fixated on the DT position that never seemed to improve despite multiple draft picks?

Carl's whole Chiefs career has been marked by using high picks solely on need positions instead of taking the best player available.

KCTitus
12-07-2004, 08:51 AM
I like Sims. At least he brings some attitude to the team while out on the field. i don't care to see Sims have 10 Sacks, I just want to see him clog the middle. If the Chiefs had a stud DE, I think we would all be talking about the great job Sims is doing.

yeah, but I sure would have liked to see Sims get that one sack on Collins he whiffed on Sunday.

beavis
12-07-2004, 08:54 AM
When the fug has Carl said this?
Every year since he's been here, around the middle of April.

Even if he said it, he sure as hell doesn't practice it.
In his mind he does.

Cochise
12-07-2004, 08:59 AM
When the fug has Carl said this? Even if he said it, he sure as hell doesn't practice it.

You think LJ was the best player available in '03, or was he picked because we needed insurance in case Priest was hurt or held out?

You think Junior Siavii was the best player available in '04, or were we still fixated on the DT position that never seemed to improve despite multiple draft picks?

Carl's whole Chiefs career has been marked by using high picks solely on need positions instead of taking the best player available.

If you have ever listened to an interview of Carl after any draft since he has been here he always says best player available is what they pick. You may not agree with his choice of players in hindsight but you dont appear to know that this IS the philosophy they embrace.

Chiefnj
12-07-2004, 09:08 AM
Carl said they had LJ ranked as the best player available when the Chiefs were picking.

Vermeil even mentioned it during his interview when he said he was leaning toward Brayton.

Chiefnj
12-07-2004, 09:11 AM
4/27/03 article from kcchiefs.com

"Everything seemed to fall into place for the Chiefs in the first round of the 2003 NFL Draft. Sitting with the 16th overall pick, the Kansas City brass had one player identified as their top choice – RB Larry Johnson from Penn State. However, the bonus in this pick for the Chiefs was that they didn’t have to take him at that spot. Peterson gambled on a trade with the Pittsburgh Steelers, dropping to the 27th overall pick where they were still able to nab their premier choice and grab two extra picks.

“His stats speak for themselves,” Peterson said. “His postseason awards, too. But as a young man, without any question he’s going to fit into this organization very well.”

shaneo69
12-07-2004, 09:22 AM
4/27/03 article from kcchiefs.com

"Everything seemed to fall into place for the Chiefs in the first round of the 2003 NFL Draft. Sitting with the 16th overall pick, the Kansas City brass had one player identified as their top choice – RB Larry Johnson from Penn State. However, the bonus in this pick for the Chiefs was that they didn’t have to take him at that spot. Peterson gambled on a trade with the Pittsburgh Steelers, dropping to the 27th overall pick where they were still able to nab their premier choice and grab two extra picks.

“His stats speak for themselves,” Peterson said. “His postseason awards, too. But as a young man, without any question he’s going to fit into this organization very well.”

Read this article again, and think about what it really says. If the Chiefs thought he was the best player available at #16, why would they trade down 11 spots to #27? They're basically admitting that they're focused on one position, and the best player at that position (RB) is only the 27th best player in the draft. They traded down because they were focused on need, not best player available.

Coogs
12-07-2004, 09:28 AM
Might be a repost, but I just read it.



By John Clayton
ESPN.com

Who could forget 2002 when the Vikings, juggling trade options or the chance to draft defensive tackle Ryan Sims from North Carolina, let the 15-minute decision period pass and had the Chiefs run to the table to select Sims?

Who could forget? Clayton apparently. The Chiefs and Cowboys were working a trade for 6th and 8th. The clock ran out on that trade, and the Vikes could have snuck in and put the screws to..... us?

It was the next year when the Vikes really set off a chain of events by not getting to the podium on time.

Chiefnj
12-07-2004, 09:29 AM
Read this article again, and think about what it really says. If the Chiefs thought he was the best player available at #16, why would they trade down 11 spots to #27? They're basically admitting that they're focused on one position, and the best player at that position (RB) is only the 27th best player in the draft. They traded down because they were focused on need, not best player available.

I read it differently. I read it as the Chiefs had Johnson as their top pick at #16. They looked at the rest of the draft board and didn't see someone taking a HB so they risked trading down. They still got the guy they wanted, who they thought was the best value at #16, and got some additional draft picks to boot.

Baby Lee
12-07-2004, 09:32 AM
Read this article again, and think about what it really says. If the Chiefs thought he was the best player available at #16, why would they trade down 11 spots to #27? They're basically admitting that they're focused on one position, and the best player at that position (RB) is only the 27th best player in the draft. They traded down because they were focused on need, not best player available.
The quote says neither yeah nor nay on the issue of best athlete available. It points out they predicted that the one they picked as the best they could pick would not be picked by the people placed ahead of them when they moved down. Whether that was because the other teams were picking BAA and LJ was not that, or because the other teams were picking positions and RB was not their choice is not laid out. Similarly, the reasoning is not laid out for the Chiefs.

shaneo69
12-07-2004, 09:33 AM
Who could forget? Clayton apparently. The Chiefs and Cowboys were working a trade for 6th and 8th. The clock ran out on that trade, and the Vikes could have snuck in and put the screws to..... us?

It was the next year when the Vikes really set off a chain of events by not getting to the podium on time.

I mentioned that in an earlier post. You'd think that ESPN could afford to hire editors who checked facts before printing it.

Coogs
12-07-2004, 09:41 AM
I mentioned that in an earlier post. You'd think that ESPN could afford to hire editors who checked facts before printing it.

Sorry, didn't have time to read all the previous posts.

Cormac
12-07-2004, 09:51 AM
Coming off a 6-10 season, we probably had other positions of need that weren't such a risky position as DT. Instead of looking solely at need, which Peterson has done a lot (see my Carl Peterson draft summaries), we probably should have picked the best player available, no matter the position. From what I remember, Roy Williams................


Can you imagine, just for a second, the meltdown that would have resulted on Chiefsplanet if we had used our highest draft pick in more than a decade on a SAFETY!

ROFL

Besides, we already had Greg Wesley, who at the time at least, was a major fan-favourite. And we were playing the likes of Downing, Ransom, and maybe even Steve Martin at DT. There was no bigger need position in 2002 than DT, IMO.

Baby Lee
12-07-2004, 09:53 AM
Can you imagine, just for a second, the meltdown that would have resulted on Chiefsplanet if we had used our highest draft pick in more than a decade on a SAFETY!

ROFL
I would've been even further out on my own KCJohnny-esque island here, clapping enthusiastically, if that had happened.

shaneo69
12-07-2004, 10:09 AM
Can you imagine, just for a second, the meltdown that would have resulted on Chiefsplanet if we had used our highest draft pick in more than a decade on a SAFETY!

ROFL

Besides, we already had Greg Wesley, who at the time at least, was a major fan-favourite. And we were playing the likes of Downing, Ransom, and maybe even Steve Martin at DT. There was no bigger need position in 2002 than DT, IMO.

We also had John Browning, and we had just taken Eric Downing as our top pick the year before.

At LB, we had Maz penciled in to replace Donnie Edwards at weakside, we had Patton at MLB, and Bush at SLB. I think LB was more of a need. But like I said, when you're picking that high, you probably have enough holes that you should be able to pick the best player available and not have to focus on a need position.

ChiefNJ already corrected me in that Roy Williams was not an option for us anyway. But for instance, Bryant McKinnie was the best OT. Dwight Freeney was the best DE available. Philip Buchanon was the best CB. Donte Stallworth, Ashley Lelie, and Javon Walker were the best available at WR. Napoleon Harris was the best LB available. We had needs at all of these positions. We didn't have to focus on DT.

Baby Lee
12-07-2004, 10:49 AM
No team has has done a better job building their defense in the last few years than the Ravens, and one of the reasons is how they scrutinize defensive tackles. They lean toward the overachiever more than the flash of a 320-pound specimen with great quickness. The Ravens won a Super Bowl with Tony Siragusa and Sam Adams. They were hungry big men, but hungry in a good way. They have changed to a 3-4, but they are getting great mileage out of overachievers Kelly Gregg and Marques Douglas.


"Sometimes you are better off taking guys who will hustle more than just the talent," Newsome said. "You want guys at that position who care for the game."
What does this say about the state of our D? DV is supposed to be getting guys to fit his 'profile,' and a number of people opined that it has led to deficiency of talent. But it would appear to the Ravens' and Pats' way of thinking, profile, drive, work ethic, trump flashes of talent. or raw numbers.
Are the Ravens and Pats just lucky? Are they looking for a profile and stumbling bass ackwards into talent. Does DV have the wrong profile? What?

KCTitus
12-07-2004, 10:53 AM
Are the Ravens and Pats just lucky? Are they looking for a profile and stumbling bass ackwards into talent. Does DV have the wrong profile? What?

Dunno...but I believe that NE did stumble onto Brady and it turned their franchise around. Their defense was good before Brady showed up and it was Bledsoe holding them down.

Deberg_1990
12-07-2004, 10:58 AM
Our run defense is solid. Occasionally Sims gets some pressure.

I guess he will never be the great pass rusher some thought he would be.

I don't think Sims is a bust but he's probably never going to be a great DT.

BINGO! Hes going to play in the league a long time as long as he stays healthy. Teams always can use a big wide body. Hes NOT going to be a pass rushing threat though. Damn you John Bunting!!

alpha_omega
12-07-2004, 11:15 AM
Nachos....ROFL ROFL

Ultra Peanut
12-07-2004, 11:23 AM
Who could forget 2002 when the Vikings, juggling trade options or the chance to draft defensive tackle Ryan Sims from North Carolina, let the 15-minute decision period pass and had the Chiefs run to the table to select Sims?Uh... you, I guess, since it didn't happen that way at all.

Ultra Peanut
12-07-2004, 11:24 AM
We also had John Browning, and we had just taken Eric Downing as our top pick the year before.Yeah... in the THIRD ROUND.

Brock
12-07-2004, 12:11 PM
Uh... you, I guess, since it didn't happen that way at all.

More senseless piling on by the grade schoolers.

Ultra Peanut
12-07-2004, 12:22 PM
I PWNT YOU BROCK I PWNT YOU

Demonpenz
12-07-2004, 12:51 PM
I wouldn't have been pissed if roy williams would have been picked. He is a playmaker who actually hits.

Baby Lee
12-07-2004, 12:53 PM
I wouldn't have been pissed if roy williams would have been picked. He is a playmaker who actually hits.
My pain at passing that pick was assuaged by the hype over Sims. Now time has numbed the pain.

shaneo69
12-07-2004, 01:10 PM
Yeah... in the THIRD ROUND.

3rd rounders shouldn't be expected to develop into starters? Browning was a 3rd rounder who started in his 2nd year. I guess it only took one full season for them to decide that Downing was a bust.

Brock
12-07-2004, 01:12 PM
My pain at passing that pick was assuaged by the hype over Sims. Now time has numbed the pain.

I wonder if it was an option. We traded up, Dallas traded down. How did Dallas know the Chiefs weren't going to grab Roy Williams?

patteeu
12-07-2004, 02:37 PM
From what I remember, Roy Williams and Bryant McKinnie were considered bigger locks at their positions than Sims was. Even though SS and LT weren't the biggest needs, we probably would've gotten a better player.

Call these radical-departure-from-conventional-wisdom shots in advance and you get a gold star. Call them after 3 years of hindsight and... well... you don't get a gold star.

Rain Man
12-07-2004, 02:41 PM
Nachos....ROFL ROFL

Nachos are an insidious force in the NFL this year, aren't they?

patteeu
12-07-2004, 02:43 PM
Read this article again, and think about what it really says. If the Chiefs thought he was the best player available at #16, why would they trade down 11 spots to #27? They're basically admitting that they're focused on one position, and the best player at that position (RB) is only the 27th best player in the draft. They traded down because they were focused on need, not best player available.

Could it be precisely that while RB was a need, it wasn't the glaringly obvious need that you seem to suggest the Chiefs thought it was. The truth is there were mixed feelings about how much of a need it was. Carl seems to have wanted an RB but Vermeil didn't. This scenario describes a compromise. By trading down, Carl got an extra pick and Dick didn't have to take an RB at #16. The fact that Johnson was still available at #27 made the opportunity too good to pass up. It's at least as likely as your scenario because if they were "focused on need" and they thought their need was RB, then they would have taken him at #16.

Baby Lee
12-07-2004, 02:47 PM
Call these radical-departure-from-conventional-wisdom shots in advance and you get a gold star. Call them after 3 years of hindsight and... well... you don't get a gold star.
The INSTANT the search feature is restored, feel free to pull up everything I've EVER said about Roy Williams [not the norf cackalackie traitor, though].

shaneo69
12-07-2004, 03:39 PM
Call these radical-departure-from-conventional-wisdom shots in advance and you get a gold star. Call them after 3 years of hindsight and... well... you don't get a gold star.

I don't know that taking McKinnie or Williams would've really been such a "radical-departure-from-conventional-wisdom."

But I wasn't saying that we should've drafted one of them, I was just saying that we should've drafted the best player available, no matter what position he played. I don't find it difficult to believe that Sims was the best available DT on the Chiefs board, but I do find it hard to believe that he was the best available player on their board.

Count Zarth
12-07-2004, 05:16 PM
Some dipshit at the Mane tried to tell me we should have drafted Darnell Dockett this year.

2bikemike
12-07-2004, 05:45 PM
While Sims has been spotty I think that one other major force on the line would really tie it all together.

go bowe
12-07-2004, 08:07 PM
While Sims has been spotty I think that one other major force on the line would really tie it all together.i'm with you on that one...

adding talent at the lde spot would help sims alot because teams wouldn't be able to double team sims all the time...

and if allen muscles up over the offseason and improves his run defense at rde, that should free up sims even more...

with some decent help at both ends, i think sims will end up pleasing most of us...

maybe not all pro, but at least very good...

stevieray
12-07-2004, 08:13 PM
i'm with you on that one...

adding talent at the lde spot would help sims alot because teams wouldn't be able to double team sims all the time...

and if allen muscles up over the offseason and improves his run defense at rde, that should free up sims even more...

with some decent help at both ends, i think sims will end up pleasing most of us...

maybe not all pro, but at least very good...

Please let Junior bust out next year...

Count Zarth
12-07-2004, 08:14 PM
Please let Junior bust out next year...

A monster DT combo for years to come would be great. If we can get a young LDE in here, we could have one of the best defensive lines in football for YEARS.

philfree
12-07-2004, 08:24 PM
Could it be precisely that while RB was a need, it wasn't the glaringly obvious need that you seem to suggest the Chiefs thought it was. The truth is there were mixed feelings about how much of a need it was. Carl seems to have wanted an RB but Vermeil didn't. This scenario describes a compromise. By trading down, Carl got an extra pick and Dick didn't have to take an RB at #16. The fact that Johnson was still available at #27 made the opportunity too good to pass up. It's at least as likely as your scenario because if they were "focused on need" and they thought their need was RB, then they would have taken him at #16.

I agree with this. When our pick rolled around the best D players were off the board so we traded down in hopes of maximizing the pick and then when LJ was still on the board he was the best available and with Holmes' hip we couldn't pass him up.


PhilFree :arrow:

Logical
12-07-2004, 08:24 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Carl always says 'best player available' and gets crucified around here for it. Now here is someone saying he doesn't do it and needs to. Anyone else see the irony here?

ROFL
There is no irony because while Carl is saying the Best Athlete Available he is picking the biggest longshot project available.

One of the few times he did not was with Sims and I supported that pick and still do. Though it appears he is nearly a bust.

Logical
12-07-2004, 08:27 PM
I agree with this. When our pick rolled around the best D players were off the board so we traded down in hopes of maximizing the pick and then when LJ was still on the board he was the best available and with Holmes' hip we couldn't pass him up.


PhilFree :arrow:

Yeah there were no good defensive players availabe there was no Nick Barnett or Tyler Brayton.

philfree
12-07-2004, 08:34 PM
As far as LDE is concerned Hicks is alright on 1st and 2nd down but on 3rd downs we don't get enough pass rush. If we could draft a DE who could come in on 3rd down and get to the QB in short time we would be much better on D. Hopefully that player would be able to become a 3 down DE in is 2nd year.

PhilFree :arrow:

Frankie
12-07-2004, 10:31 PM
By the point of this article, then, we should shift the pressure of our expectations from Sims to Siavii.

patteeu
12-07-2004, 11:45 PM
I don't know that taking McKinnie or Williams would've really been such a "radical-departure-from-conventional-wisdom."

But I wasn't saying that we should've drafted one of them, I was just saying that we should've drafted the best player available, no matter what position he played. I don't find it difficult to believe that Sims was the best available DT on the Chiefs board, but I do find it hard to believe that he was the best available player on their board.

I'm not saying that those two players weren't considered great prospects. The conventional wisdom among Chiefs fans, analysts, and coaches (in their public comments), though, was that the Chiefs needed defensive help and that safety was one of the only defensive positions were we already had a strong hand. To suggest now that we should have taken one of those two and passed on the chance to pick the best of a stronger than usual DT class is a lot less impressive than it would have been if you'd made the case prior to seeing how Sims has turned out. That's all I'm really saying.

The INSTANT the search feature is restored, feel free to pull up everything I've EVER said about Roy Williams [not the norf cackalackie traitor, though].

Baby Lee, if you did make that case wrt Roy Williams, then you do get a gold star.

Chris Meck
12-08-2004, 09:41 AM
Sims was considered the most 'Complete' DT in that draft. Meaning, best combination of size, quickness, pass rush ability and run-stuffing ability.

It's clear in retrospect that some of the other DT's in that draft have since become better players in one respect or the other; it's difficult to say how much of that is due to a couple of seasons in G-Rob's system and almost an entire season lost to injury.

A bust? Well, not really. Sims has been very solid against the run this season, has shown some real hustle, and has overall played fairly well. He has NOT shown the pass rush ability that we'd hoped for, but that is a technique issue I think, and can be improved.

I agree, unfortunately, that Hicks is done-as I like the guy very much as a human being. He just can't get upfield anymore. Browning could be a bulll-rusher at that spot next season, with Dalton, Siavii and Sims holding down the inside and Allen (with about 15 extra pounds of muscle) on the RDE.

I think that MLB and CB are the biggest areas of need; the line should be somewhat better next year just due to young player improvement and replacing Hicks.

Chris

bricks
12-08-2004, 10:06 AM
Bad article. Is this supposively supposed to justify a reason and cover up for the guys sh*tty performance? He still sucks.

Frankie
12-08-2004, 10:26 AM
Sims was considered the most 'Complete' DT in that draft. Meaning, best combination of size, quickness, pass rush ability and run-stuffing ability.

It's clear in retrospect that some of the other DT's in that draft have since become better players in one respect or the other; it's difficult to say how much of that is due to a couple of seasons in G-Rob's system and almost an entire season lost to injury.

A bust? Well, not really. Sims has been very solid against the run this season, has shown some real hustle, and has overall played fairly well. He has NOT shown the pass rush ability that we'd hoped for, but that is a technique issue I think, and can be improved.

I agree, unfortunately, that Hicks is done-as I like the guy very much as a human being. He just can't get upfield anymore. Browning could be a bulll-rusher at that spot next season, with Dalton, Siavii and Sims holding down the inside and Allen (with about 15 extra pounds of muscle) on the RDE.

I think that MLB and CB are the biggest areas of need; the line should be somewhat better next year just due to young player improvement and replacing Hicks.

Chris

Exactly what I wanted to say. Good post. :thumb: